tv Washington This Week CSPAN January 7, 2012 2:00pm-6:30pm EST
be the strong third place by going into the primary. host: this is from an e-mail -- has there been any fallout from the union leader's endorsement of newt gingrich? guest: when did newspaper's becoming a political fronts? guest: no, i will answer the earlier question -- when did newspapers become a political front? i do not know, 20 years ago? i do not know where this guy has been. newspapers have pulled in their horns on that. the "union leader" is different. i kiddingly say the difference between the "union leader" and liberal papers are that we're both on editorials on the front page, but we label hours as editorials, and there's is in their news coverage. fallout -- i get three people who cancelled their descriptions because i called ron paul a
dangerous man, but then you pick up subscriptions because what you do in the say. we're like a lot of newspapers, and we let our readers have their say as well. today, we have a full page of letters, half of which disagree with our endorsement, and some of which are endorsing ron paul and mitt romney. we will have another full page in sunday's paper and more the day before the election. host: our line for republicans. a call from columbus, ohio. you're talking with joseph mcquaid. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. i am calling because i am a little mad at america. i am and merit -- a veteran. i have a friend who passed away in this war. [unintelligible] you just would not believe.
i am sick and tired of being deceived by government pitt i am tired of the donkeys and elephant's. it is the same as ron paul stated i am in next democrat. i do not want to vote republican -- else -- i am not going to vote for ron paul republican. he has stated the facts. shut down all these foreign police and the foreign embassies and get everything back to american-made. i do not have one stitch of clothing in my closet that says american-made, and that is appalling. romney is saying, parry, president obama -- i am 41 years old. it is time for change.
ron paul talks about the treasury department. host: joseph mcquaid, go ahead, please. guest: well, first, i thank ian for his service. you hear that statement quite a bit. why are we spending so much money abroad when we have problems here at home? to a great extent, i agree with that, and speaker gingrich's agrees with that. he says we have to refocus and look at what we're doing. and why are we still in germany so long after world war ii, and why are we on the korean peninsula so long after world war ii? there are certain obligations that are in america's interest to defend overseas, but i do not think it is to the extent that we're currently doing it. and we are asking so much of our volunteer army, air force, navy,
and marines, that it is really playing them out and not being fair to the veterans who have had tour of duty after tour of duty and severally tough situations. that includes not only the regular army but the national guard, which new hampshire has quite a contingent, and that affects their families and their communities. i think america is fed up with that kind of thing, and that is why ron paul resonates with them. i just think that you cannot just sleep with as big a brush as he intends to do, but it is going to attract some of voters. host: next up, a call on our line for democrats. caller: good morning. i am a registered democrat. i have a ron paul sticker on my
car. i have a few reasons for that. romney, i have not heard enough about him until this morning. that is one reason could a second reason is he is honest. the third reason is maybe he will build a third party, which is a dream of mine because i am kind of sick of the other two. and if that happens, obama will definitely win. thank you. host: joseph mcquaid, among to throw into that this tweet -- host: your thoughts about the possible emergence of a third- party candidate during this election cycle? guest: i think there will always be one. it is a question of how strong is a third-party candidate might be. inclusion in debates is a
separate issue. i think the democratic caller is correct, that if ron paul does a third-party candidacy, then it it is just going to take votes away from the republican and district in the possibility of president obama getting back -- and strengthen the possibility of president upobama getting back in again. the two parties have all the money. there has not been as successful third-party candidacy in american presidential history ever, and the high tide of it was teddy roosevelt in 1912 going against the incumbent from his own party, which split the republican party and it led to woodrow wilson getting in. there have been attempts at that before. how do you determine or how the networks determine who gets the airtime in the third party thing is really tough. i have heard governor buddy
roemer's name mentioned here this morning. he is a really good guy and really working hard, and his fans have been upset that he has not been included in all the debates or any of the debates. but the question is, where do you draw the line? federally registered to run for president, i think there is in excess of 130 candidates. in new hampshire alone, i think they're more than 17, 18 candidates listed on the two- party balance. and, you know, a dozen or more on the republican side. how do you have all those people in an hour and a half -- anything longer, you'll lose the attention span of people, and have any kind of discussion at all? secretly, i was hoping perry
would have dropped out so the debate tonight and tomorrow would be among three or four candidates. therefore, the questions would have more time and the candidates would have more time for a really good back-and-forth discussion. practically only a couple are going to be able to go on. host: our listeners and viewers can find this on the web page, unionleader.com. the lesson from iowa, conservative republicans and light-minded independents had better rally around their strongest candidate or face the real prospect of having barack obama walk all over former massachusetts governor romney. you say that romney, having vastly outspent his rivals, managed to win six and fewer votes in iowa this time than he did four years ago. he virtually tied rick santorum
and ron paul, gained less than a quarter of the boat and declared victory. you finish off by saying voters may find other candidates personally appealing, but newt gingrich's record of conservative accomplishments is unparalleled, and his beliefs are passionate and clear. romney was governor of the most liberal state in the country and managed to be obama at delivering obamacare, so forget the kind of negative advertising and nastiness that will play against gingrich. instead, listen, reid, and watch the candidates. there is a great opportunity to set the course of history, just as with ronald reagan. guest: you read that just like i wrote it. host: thank you very much. new hampshire's voters, are they said to alter the corset little bit and move speaker gingrich up? is that what it will take his order to dismantle or at least give some pause to the romney
campaign? guest: well, that is my hope. i do think new hampshire is going to alter, somewhat, the way things are now. new hampshire filter's people out. and somebody who does not finish in the top three or four is not going to be able to go on. that has been sort of a wild card. if ron paul, part of the young people support. jon huntsman has the other part of the young people support. a high school in new hampshire decided it like what iowa did with carcasses, which is something new hampshire people do not like. they let the secret candidate. but they invited the candidates down, and it broke in favor of huntsman first, ron paul second, and romney third. rick santorum and gingrich did not make the first year with the kids. some new hampshire will change things.
the headline will probably be romney wins going into the south, but the sub-headline, i do not know what it is going to be, but it is going to say who is going along with him. what we said about by a well was that -- about iowa is that for all this time romney has been campaigning, he has not been able to get above 25% of the vote. the polls here say he is going to do 40% to 45%. that would be a heck of a change, and even given his status as a semi-citizen of new hampshire, that would be the strongest real success that he has had to date and, you know, could make him the eventual nominee. but at the moment, an awful lot of conservatives do not like the idea. and i will not be surprised -- again, may be wishful thinking, that after new hampshire, rick perry, santorum, and gingrich
got together and said, we're much more alike than we are against romney and two of us should get out and back the other one. that could be fun. host: [laughs] in the "wall street journal," it new hampshire.odd and is is why he is favored in the state with an active t party and as socially conservative legislature. why is governor romney favorite in a state with this act of tea party in a social conservative legislature when you have folks on the bill right now who are, by all intents and purposes, way more conservative than the former governor? guest: well, a very interesting question. new hampshire is not socially conservative. the legislature did swing wildly last time around, from democrat
to republican. but it is mostly on fiscal issues, not on social issues. but a lot of the republicans who got in happened to be more socially conservative than the regular folks. the g party is not all that strong in new hampshire either. it is a force, but not the overwhelming force. romney has got the republican establishment backing. and he has also got the republican establishment media backing. being a fan of kingsbridge, i have watched with great interest the response to him, and s soon as he started climbing in the polls in the "union -- "union leader" endorsed and, i have never seen such a carpet bombing of one candidate by not only the other candidate and the other candidate's super pac, but by
the conservative media, national review, which backed romney last time, and also the cable news media. gingrich is an open book. he has had a lot of personal baggage, and people in the media brought it up time after time after time. i am surprised, frankly, that he made it out of iowa into new hampshire. but dr. romney, romney has a couple of former governors in his camp. a former u.s. senator, who also backed george bush over ronald reagan in 1980. john sununu, who was george bush's chief of staff and does not like newt gingrich because of a tax deal he would not go along with. he has another u.s. senator. he has the republican establishment, romney does, so that helps them in new hampshire. as i say, we're fiscally
conservative, not socially conservative. new hampshire may be one of the least churched states in the nation. by that, i mean, even though i guess the majority of people who go to church are roman catholic, it is a minority of people that go to church at all. that is why i have not seen it santorum or cooking grid, or both catholic, make much of that fact. and the mormon thing, relative to romney and huntsman, does not mean anything up here. it may be a detriment to governor romney going south, from what i a understand of these southern republican politics. but in new hampshire, and i guess this is a good thing, your religion does not make any difference at all. host: back to the phones. los angeles, california, independent line. you are on the "washington
journal" with joseph mcquaid. caller: ron paul is hardly dangers and he does not want to fight israel or the middle east. he does not want to attack or support israel. go to the last "washington journal" segment and you'll see who is real dangers. the neocon gop who wants to continue wars with israel. distant republicans like my have -- like myself have become independent. i have already left the party. many others will. we will vote for ron paul as an independent, and the neocon gop will lose. host: joseph mcquaid, you get the last word. guest: i am not sure what the 9/11 thing is, i guess that is a reference to september 11, 2001. dr. ron paul has famously stated that we brought that on ourselves. that is one of the reasons why i think he is a dangerous man. c-span3 joseph mcquaid --
host: joseph mcquaid is the president and publisher of the new hampshire and "union leader." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> we are here in southern new hampshire where we're covering gop presidential candidate rick santorum's town hall meeting. the event was expected to start -- looks like it is starting in a few minutes. they're trying to accommodate and overflow crowd here in hollis, new hampshire. let's take a look.
this is 200 years old and was moved here in 1999. hollis was an agricultural community. we just love this town. i am a state senate turf for district 12. i live here in hollis. is to give you a little bit, for those of you who are not from this area, a little color, we are of a true citizen legislature in this state. we have four hundred reps. we had the third largest house of representatives in english- speaking world. we're proud of that. and we only have 24 senators. as you may know, we had a huge ship in the house and the senate in this state. we have supermajorities on the republicans' side. redistricting, we just announced that, so there is a lot going
on. we are the true home of retail politics. you probably heard that we're not going to even look at a candidate unless we have shaken their hand, talked to them for at least 10 times. so we are the filter for the nation. that is why new hampshire must stay the first primary in the united states. [applause] let me just tell you very quickly why i endorse rick santorum. i have known rickman for about a year and a half, and actually i had a meal with him at the crown plaza in nashua. i am sure some of you from out of state have been there. six months ago, he asked for my endorsement. i said, rick, i need to see some numbers. i need to see some performance. we have been talking ever since. i talked to him after the caucuses, and i gave him my
endorsement i am joining another senator who has also endorsed him. we're the two state senators peter i am very proud to support him. very quickly, why? i will tell you one thing, dod just announced huge massive cuts. i do not want somebody in the white house said 3:00 a.m. if iran wants to play games, who is not ready to do what is necessary. this is the most dangerous international environment we have had in decades. russia, north korea, iran, they looked at us as a weak nation. we have to stand strong in that. fiscally, it is a disaster. how many of you can run a home budget or 43 cents out of every $1 you borrow, we're told we cannot do that? now, why can washington do that?
so this is why i am supporting rick santorum. he is strong on these issues. he is strong on the social issues as well. i am proud to be with them. i hope he is -- is he here? all right, he is coming. he is out there. all right, i want to let you know -- ok, listen, after this, we have the pharmacist here at the hollis pharmacy. every major republican candidate stops by his pharmacy. it is kind of like campaign headquarters for us republicans here in hollis, so he is going to stop by their after birds. we had been reached here three weeks ago and all the pictures on the wall. i have met all the candidates. it is great here in new hampshire. they meet up and want to sit with us and talk with us. this guy is for real. i look at some of these people and i am alike, is this a person
in front of me who really believes and is going to do what they say they are going to do? we see this up close and personal. i have sat with some of the candidates in private meetings and have asked very tough questions about their personal lives, issues, how they are running their campaigns, and how they have done it in the past. he is the real deal. he is great. he is surrounded by cameras out there. [laughter] what else can i tell you? [laughter] i am interested, how many of you are from new hampshire? can you raise your hands? ok, besides the press -- [laughter] besides the press, how many of you are from out of state. wow. all right. how many massachusetts folks do
we have? do you want to move to new hampshire? come on out. what other states do we have represented? rhode island, new york, maine, connecticut, pennsylvania. well, you have got to have pennsylvania. rick is here. barbados, wow. i believe they're not part of the united states. [laughter] how about west coast? anybody from the midwest or west coast? illinois, all right. good. ok. [laughs] let's see. great britain, back here. let me give you able more color here.
>> we're just standing by here in hollis, new hampshire. apparently, rick santorum is just outside the doors here, speaking to the crowd that is outside this barn in southern new hampshire, coming inside momentarily to let you know, the former pennsylvania senator will be heading to manchester tonight for the abc wmur debate. that is the first debate since the iowa caucuses when the former senator had such a surge among the voters. now back to the event here in hollis, new hampshire. >> i noticed london -- one of
the criticisms of rigs santorum is that he is wonky. we like that in new hampshire. we want real answers, not sound bites. the other night, we heard about baseline budgeting. a lot of people did not know about that. we do not want to see tv ads. we want to see people. so here he is. [applause] if we can get him in here. [cheers and applause] welcome to hollis. >> thank you very much. wow, can everybody hear me ok? thank you, senator, one of two
state senators here in the state of new hampshire to endorse us. i want to thank both of them, as well as a lot of state representatives. some are back in the crowd. one has been traveling with us. i want to thank all of the leaders in new hampshire for stepping forward and supporting our campaign. this is a -- wow, i am a little stunned at this turn out. this is awesome. thank you, hollis. god bless you. thank you. [applause] we're traveling through today. i do not know about too many candidates who are running around the state doing debates with the people of new hampshire. i get asked the question all the time, what do you do for debate prep? this, this is what we do. we take the questions that are tougher from the people than we will get from the panel tonight.
i want to say a couple things to you. that is that i think you realize from the fact that you are here that this is the most important election in your lifetime. i do not care how old you are. this is an election that is a turning point election. what we see happening in washington, d.c., will put us on an irrevocable course toward an america that i felt, as the art of -- father of seven children, married 27 years, someone who has served in public life before and thought i was pretty much over with my public service, thought i was going to go off and what a father of seven children should do, which is spend time with his family and provide for them, does like you will try to do every day. but my wife and i made the decision that we cannot, in good conscience, do that and see what is happening to our country happened without standing up and getting above the fray. that is what the tea party movement did, and god bless them
for having done it in the last election in 2010, because but- for the tea party, we would have never won that election. [applause] i do not claim to be a two-party member. i was involved in politics long before the tea party. but i have great admiration for what they did. they got me in the habit of carrying this, the constitution of our country and the founding documents up our country, and to remind me exactly what this country was founded on and why we created, through those founding documents, those principles that make us americans . people always say, what makes america unique? it is not an ethnic group. not french, not british. we are americans by what we believe in, the values we share and held in common in our founding documents. we're different than any other country in the world in that regard. think about it.
any other country with some sort of trouble or ethnic affinity. in america, that does not relate. we are america because we believe in certain things. i talk about this. i was doing a debate with howard dean -- you remember him? your neighbor. i did a debate with howard dean over and northwestern university about two years ago. i was asked by a student, what is the greatest virtue of america, and howard dean answered adversity. i said, well, no, you got that one wrong. diversity is a wonderful thing, but the key to america is the fact that people who are diverse can come together to be one. e. pluribus unim -- out of many, one. [applause]
to the greatness of our constitution, it is not just the establishment of the legislature. the greatness is that it created a structure where everyone could come together and have their say and fight it out, people who have strong convictions based on faith or no faith, people who have experience in one area or experience from another country. they can come to america and work together to come up with a common purpose. that is what our founders did. people from very different backgrounds, different states and traditions. they came together with a core set of values that believed in free people. and then, through free people, we could build a great society from the bottom-up. this is fundamentally different from where our founders came from.
they came from countries that rights did not come for you, as we sat in the decoration, from god. rights came from the king, and then the king or emperor spread those rights around. we were different. we transformed the world because we believe in free people, a free-market, free enterprise. the foundational principles of faith and family, building strong communities, civic organizations. just what happens here in new hampshire. you and any other state hold on to those traditions of local government and locally trying to do things at psittacine governance. you pay them a lot of money to be a state senator here. [laughter] i mean, i do not know, you might be able to buy back in iowa for that money. >> not even that. >> not even that? but you understand that smaller
government, doing things here in hollis and at your local community and that your church and neighborhood, that is how you keep government limited and people free. right? [cheers and applause] we have a president who does not believe that. we have a president that believes that people can no longer, in this very complex world, handle free them. that we need government to do things, more and more things for people. so they can live better lives, because smarter people, smarter people who think these things out and plan these things and who have better educations than the masses, that they are the ones that should be able to design the health care system, not from the bottom-up, not based on free markets, but based
on government control. telling you every single thing. whether what benefits you are going to have, how much you pay, what doctors you can see. all of those things will not be dictated as a result of obamacare. your education system, top-down. we should have an education system that is focused on the parent who is responsible in working with the education system and designing and education system that is best for every child in america. why do we settle for less? you do not settle for less when you walk into a store. you walk in and say, well, give me what everybody else is getting? no, you get what is best for you. it is your money. it is you're right, in a sense, of taking your money and being able to spend it in a way that you believe is best for your child or for you. yet, in our education system, it does not work that way, unless
you have an excessively large amount of money and you can avoid the public system and go somewhere else. why do we accept that? why do we accept something that is less than what we need as a country? that is the question i asked the people here in new hampshire today. we have a vote coming up on tuesday. i suspect that is why you're here. [laughter] that is why i am here. you have a choice to make on tuesday, and it is not an easy choice. you have a lot of folks who are good, decent people, who are campaigning, by and large, as conservatives, saying the same thing as the message. i know that. and putting out plans and ideas that will hopefully resonate not just with you here but with the american people, and that is a good thing. but you have the job of having to differentiate, having to figure out who the real deal is, who is the person we really need, who is what is best for america. the last time we had a watershed
election like this, in my opinion, was back in 1980. we had another democratic incumbent president who was destroying the american economy, destroying american credibility around the world, who was embarrassing america with his policy toward -- what with that country, iran, as they held hostages, and we seemed completely incapacitated to do anything. america was seen as weak. america was seen as not believing in itself or its people again, that we need a government to do things. as a result, business struggled, inflation went up. ladies and gentlemen, we're at that moment again here in 2012. and new hampshire has to make a decision, like you did in 2012, and the decision is going to be basically this -- and do we want someone who is going to go and campaign and say, a vote for me,
i can win? vote for me, i appeal to voters who we need to win, you know, moderates and the like. or do we need someone who says, america stands for something, here is my vision of this country, here is where i want to take america in a way that is consistent with the values that i have reflected throughout my career and passionately believe in? and i have got a record to back it up, and i have got a personal life story that will back it up. those are the choices. you had them in 1980. george h. w. bush and ronald reagan. the people of iowa voted first fiddle you know, those real conservative evangelicals typesetter sort of out of the mainstream of american politics -- at least that is what i hear from the national press? they voted for george h. w. bush, and new hampshire voted
reagan. that group of people here that they say are not that conservative here in new hampshire, they voted for reagan. did they vote for reagan because they necessarily agree with him and all of his conservative policies? no, they voted for reagan because they knew he believed in all those conservative policies and that they could trust him when he went to washington, d.c., to stand up and fight for the things that our country needed at a critical time. that is what i ask the people of new hampshire to do on tuesday, stand up and do what america needs to have done. we all know it is not going to be easy. yesterday, i did a couple of town hall meetings. i went into detail about social security and medicare and how they're changing. they're having a field day. santorum proposing reductions in social security. when i finished -- they did not
tell you this, when i finished the discussion, we had a 45- minute talk on social security. be prepared. at the end of that discussion, i proposed alternatives. i said, how many people would disagree with this alternative, and not a single hand went up, not a single hand. yet, the press says santorum is trying to cut something. not a single hand in the room disagreed after we laid out the problem that this was an appropriate way to at least began. it does not solve the whole thing, but at least begin to solve the problem. you have a presidential candidacy that is about ideas, vision, and about leading, not by scaring people, not by threatening people. when i say threatening people, what i mean by that, i referred to just a few months ago when the president was trying to get votes, trying to get congress to pass the debt ceiling increase without any cuts.
remember that? right, he wanted a debt ceiling increase, no reduction in spending. what did he do? did he go out with a soaring rhetoric and talk about how important it was? did he try to educate the american public as to what the problem was and get them to rally around him for his suggestion? no, he looked in the camera at a press conference, walked out there and said, call your member of congress, because if you do not and you are a senior, you're not going to get your social security check. you're not going to get your medicare benefits. you, someone serving overseas, you're not going to get your paycheck. is that leadership? is that leadership? leadership is having the ability to go out and talk to the american public like the american -- like the people of new hampshire do every day, which is a participatory democracy, get involved by
people, know what the truth is commonly of the situation and lead by educating and getting people to follow because they agree with you, not because you are intimidating them, not because you are threatening them? this is the bully, the power that comes, and the bully that develops when you have a lot of power. we do not need a lot of bullies. we need people that believed in you, who will work with you, together, to solve those problems. i look forward to those questions. [applause] >> [inaudible] >> i can and will have a place for newt gingrich. i have said this before, i think there is a place for everybody up on that stage. there are a lot of very good and dedicated people who care deeply about this country and can bring a lot of energy, talent, ideas, new ideas to the game.
absolutely, we would have a place for newt gingrich. [applause] >> can you talk about the social security issue and beyond? >> i talked about a variety of things. i will not do the 45 minutes for the sake of everybody here. i laid out the problems in social security. we have a huge multi-trillion dollar unfunded liability. we do not have enough money to pay the benefits right now. there's not enough money coming in to pay the benefits. we do not have enough money coming in to pay the benefits. so we have to solve the problem. three ways to solve it. you can increase taxes. reduce benefits. or we can go out and borrow more money. how many people think we should pay for this by borrowing more money right now?
ok, so far, i have not found anybody who believes we will be paying the interest on that for a long time, my man. i do not find very many people. you might find one. but the consensus in america is that is not the responsible thing to do. we have a $1.20 trillion deficit. the way to fix social security is do not make it a $1.40 trillion deficit. we're going to be paying for that. every time you spend money, it is an increase in taxes somewhere. because you're going to have to pay the interest. so every borrowed dollar is an eventual increase in taxes. understand that. let's look at it. how do we solve the problem? i laid out some facts. i will let you decide how best to handle this problem. that is really what i want to do. i have suggestions. that this is an important program to -- i would almost say
to almost all americans. and to try to play politics with this, i know it happens in every election. every election i have ever run, i was attacked for trying to destroy social security. i am the only one trying to save it, folks. you cannot save social security unless you're talking about it. yet, unless you build consensus -- it is to import a program. we're not going to change anything in social security unless we have a broad consensus with the american people but you cannot get that unless you are honest with them. amelia was social security was and is. the real character of the program has changed, because america has changed. social security and to place in 1937. life expectancy in america was 61. they said the retirement age at 65. if you were on social security in 1937, you are very old, and in most cases incapable of working.
if you look at who, in 1937, by age group had the wealth in this country, it was not people over the age of 65. in fact, people over 65 were one of the poorest groups of people in american site. that is one of the reasons why social security was passed, because people were unable to work. there were no pensions. retirement savings were little. we had a depression that wiped out the markets. and we had people who were destitute. and families had to support them, which they did, but if you did not have a family, what did you do? that is why social security was put in place as a safety net, and they put a benefit in place for them. moved to today. what is the average life expectancy in america today? it is 78, the pants on male or female. for women, it is over 80. when do most seniors start to
collect social security benefits? anybody know? 62. 62. 70% of seniors start collecting benefits at 62. do you know the average life expectancy is for someone who is 62? 23 years. we have people taking social security benefits for 23 years. does anybody believe that that is what the social security system was set up to do? let me ask you this other question. are people who are 62 years of age today, other than those who are injured and disabled, or 62- year-old in america capable of working in america, by and large? we have a guy running for president who is 76. i mean, it isn't everybody else running at this point over the age of 62? people think you're not mature enough if you're not 62 to run for president in some cases.
62 is not old. the vast majority of people at 60 two can work. yeah, they're working and receiving social security benefits. is that with the program was there to do? when you're running a $1.20 trillion deficit, when you do not have enough money coming into the system to pay for benefits? i understand people say i get frightened when people talk about changing social security. remember, we're not going to change social security benefits for people on social security. we are going to change a going forward. because that is where the problem is. the retirement age is moving. going up to 67. there was the smart guy. there was the smart at p.o. who change the retirement age from 65 to 67? three people know. how smart a politician was this guy? right? retirement age going up from the person who put it through. ronald reagan. ronald reagan moved the
retirement age up. why is it that nobody knows this? because he waited 20 years to do it, so everybody forgot. and everybody who was infected was, you know, 45 or younger, and they did not care. case in point. so the easier way politicians at fixed social security in the past is to wait 20 years to do it. we do not have 20 years to wait. that is why we have to have this discussion. there are all sorts of things you can do if you look at who in america today, for example, what age group is the wealthiest age group? people over the age of 65. by far. so, here we have a situation where people are living 23 years on average on social security, instead of dying before they got social security, and we're transferring benefits for younger workers who were one of the lowest income people in america, lowest wealth
accumulation, to higher wealth accumulation. is this a system that he would call a safety net system, taxing those who do not have wealth to redistribute money to those who do? i had a conversation, so i said to folks, what sort of things do you think we should do? what is there a press report? santorum wants to cut social security. now you know why candidates do not talk about it. right? because you here who listen to the message say, you know what, this guy makes a lot of sense. let's talk about how we're going to fix this. but i think he is heading to the right direction. to the folks who do not want to fix it, but who want to use it as a political issue to do what they have been doing throughout the last three years in this country, which is to pit one group against another, scare the living daylights out of seniors. that is what this is all about. why? power. what did i just do here? i gave you the power.
i gave you the power. [applause] right? i gave you the information. [applause] i did what you do here in new hampshire. i gave you the information to start making the decisions to participate in this discussion, instead of being a pawn in a power play. i think we have to delete social security benefits for higher- income seniors. i think we need to work going forward as the retirement age continues to go up to 67 in about 10 or so years, we need to keep going. why? because people are going to continue to live longer and longer, and younger people cannot afford that burden. they just cannot. in 1950, when it seniors who are today working and started paying benefits, there were 16 workers
for every one retiree. there was a 2% payroll tax. now there is less than three workers for every retiree. 12.4% payroll tax, and it will go up to a little over 2. it is a serious burden on younger workers at a time when they have to compete with the rest of the world for labor. the biggest cost the businesses tab on labor, other than the salary itself, is the payroll tax. so understand -- why you think obama went out and tried to cut the payroll tax? yes, to get a tax break, but he thinks it will help create jobs. why? because it is the biggest tax that employers pay on labour, and they want to make labor more competitive. understand -- this is a complex issue, i get it. but we will not solve this
problem unless we bring you all together on this. and that takes leadership and courage, not being a bully. [applause] >> i am a political taurus, i found out a couple days ago. >> how many political tourists are there in the room? how about that? >> i saw atv at last night were a very fearfully voice commercial for mitt romney said mitt romney was out to save the soul of america. and i view you as the most socially conservative and socially certain candidate. i just want to ask you if you feel that you best represent the soul of america, and do you believe that it is a gay
american and soul that need to saving the most? >> i am not into the salvation business. i have somebody else i rely upon for that. [cheers and applause] >> if you respect the constitution and carry it in your pocket and say you respect the first amendment, then why do you mix church and state? >> what does the first amendment say with regards to religion? >> it says it should be separate from the state. >> this is great. this is good stuff.
i get this all the time. go ahead and look it up, if you do not mind, while i am talking. i can recited, but i will let him read the text. this happens all the time. i used to meet with young people all the time when i was in the united states senate, and we would get involved in discussions. you always get these questions about faith because that is important to kids. they are trying to figure this out. and i would ask them, what words are in the constitution? "the separation of church and state" or "congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- which is in the
constitution? and overwhelmingly, consistently, they say a. why did they believe that? that is what it should be? ok, fine, but that does not mean it is the truth. should the state be imposing values that are not the collective values as determined by our constitution? we should be teaching the truth. what is the truth? the truth is, we believe in the free exercise of religion. james madison -- you're probably not from new hampshire, are you? .o, he is not
[laughter] foreigners coming in here. we have the free exercise of religion. the first amendment is the free exercise of religion, the perfect remedy. why? because, as i said before, the constitution was meant as a document to figure out how people who are very different, have very different ideas, i can live together in peace. that is alternately with the constitution -- ultimately what the constitution is meant to do. if you look around the world, there is all sorts of strife. i grew up in pennsylvania. someone from pennsylvania? another tourist. i grew up in pennsylvania and every neighborhood in this steel
town was an ethnic neighborhood. different ethnicities, different churches. it was wonderful. in my town, there was a serbian community and the croatian community. i had friends from both communities. it was not until i got involved in politics that i realize that they hated each other over there. i would never have known that living in a community where there were both serbs and croats who did not have any animosity toward each other. what makes america special is that we allow someone like this gentleman to get up and say, i believe this. and we allow you to get up and say i believe this. i do not call you a bigot, and you should not call me a bigot. [applause] just for the record, this tenement did not say that, but it is not like i have not bent
-- this gentleman did not say that, but it is not like i have not been called that before. getting up and promoting your values and the public square is exactly what this country needs. do not be afraid to stand up like this gentleman did. if he believes the church and state should be separate, go for it. but understand and respect people who disagree with that. i am going to do a little editing of the questions here. the editing will be, only people with a new hampshire is driver's license. [applause] because i want to talk to them right now about what their concerns are. >> manufacturing. we all realize how many manufacturing jobs we have lost.
what can you do to help us regain our -- you know what i am trying to aske. >> i'm glad you asked me that question. the plan that i put forward is called be made in the usa economic plan. i am different from any other race,date in the nint republican or democrat. we need to grow the economy and we need to grow through the private sector. we need to relieve the regulatory tax burden on the private sector and create an environment where business can grow. we have had that in this country in fits and starts. we have seen the economy grow and we have seen a decline, but one area where we have seen constant decline with respect to the number of jobs being available in that area is manufacturing. when i was growing up, a 21% of
the work force was involved in manufacturing. there were a lot of people working those jobs who were providing for themselves and their family, pillars of the community, and share the basic common values of this country. they wanted the opportunity to work hard so that they could make a paycheck. they instilled those values to the next generation. well, half those jobs or more are gone. we're down to 9% of the jobs in manufacturing. and what kind of jobs are we talking about? jobs that pay $20,000 more on average than other jobs in america. not to mention, those who do have a college education who work in manufacturing in some of the higher skills the jobs that manufacturing requires. and yet we do not have anybody
who has come in the last 30 years, successfully run for president, and done anything about this. why are the jobs gone? well, this and that, guns and butter, they are better a producing this and we're better at producing at. the reality is, we're getting hurt. people are losing faith in the american dream. and the opportunity to rise, income mobility has been more limited. there are countries in western europe, many of them, unfortunately, where you are more able to rise through the ranks of income than here in america. that is not a good thing. most people do not know that objectively, but they feel it. they want to be a country where they believe they can rise if they work hard, do what they are supposed to do.
>> what are you going to do about it? >> i am getting there. i'm laying on my case, man. i'm going to put forward a plan that will take care of the problem. it is more expensive to manufacture in america than in other countries that we have to compete with. and i'm not talking about labor costs. put labor cost aside. we have 20% more expenses to manufacture in this country, to make up product, then our top nine trading partners on average. imagine what it is for some of those countries. it is a lot more expensive. so what do we want to do? well, whose fault is it? it is not labor. look at our productivity gains that we have. what we're doing as far as productivity in america has been unseen in the world. it is not a management-labor-
productivity issue. it is a government issue. it is high taxes, regulation, litigation costs, energy costs, all of which have something to do with the federal government policy. i have a multi-point plan. i will discuss a few of them with you. one, the corporate tax. the corporate tax is now 35%, the highest in the world. we eliminated. [applause] if you are a manufacturer, you're not going to pay taxes in america. why would i do that? because will make us more competitive in america. people say we will lose money. no, we will make money, because jobs will come back to america. we will employ more people, pay higher wages, and they will pay more taxes. second, regulation.
this administration has blown the lid off of high cost regulation. it cost the industry over $100 million a year. what are the average number of regulations? 63 under clinton and bush. this administration, 150. 2 1/2 times the number of crashing regulations to drive business out of this country. look at what the president did with the national labor relations board. i am not anti-union. i am anti-government coming down come on the side of companies doing right unions forced them to do. i will reduce bridges -- i will
remove regulations that cost over $100 million. finally, we need an energy policy that keeps our energy costs low. the administration last year passed an epa regulation that will cause 65 coal power plants to be shut down. they have a war on fossil fuels. they do not want to drill it, minot, burn it. what is going to happen? i know there is a big issue in new hampshire called the northern pass. what happens if we shut down 65 power plants? where will we get that power from. i love it when people say solar and wind. how much space power to all of
the solar panels and windmills' built in america contribute to the electric grid in america. zero. why zero? because it has to always work. the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. you're not doing anything to replace that base that you need so that when you walk in the door and turn the light on the light goes on. this is the phony energy policy of this administration. he wants to get to 20% green energy. i thought he was going to do it with projects like cylinder. now, he is doing it with shutting down power plants. it will drive manufacturing offshore, and we have to have a
policy that says we will be a robust energy producer to make sure that we can keep jobs here in america. [applause] >> what will your legacy be period? >> legacy? i think ultimately my legacy will be that i left this country freer, stronger, better and safer than when i walked into office. [applause] >> what are you going to do with the youth of america to ignite a passion in them?
>> to become better citizens? is that the crux of it? the answer to that is, when i was in office, i met with every young group that ever wanted to meet with me. if there was a group of young people that wanted to meet with me, i would meet with them, and i would sign every picture individually because i wanted to send a message -- and i say to every one of our youth, remember, i work for you, but you have a responsibility to be a good employer. you have to monitor your employees' behavior. you have to get reports from them and understand what they are doing, and you have to motivate them by voting for them
or against them, helping them in campaigns, or doing whatever else. the job of the citizen is essential. that is what our founders believed. originally, they limited voting to small group of people because they were concerned that all americans would not take the responsibility seriously, would not be educated enough to make an informed decision. over time, through laws and amendments to the constitution, that has opened up and more and more people -- but with that freedom to be a participant in the electoral process comes responsibility. now, good leaders, hopefully, can inspire people to pay attention more and to get involved. but ultimately, your
responsibility, your love of tontry, your desire participate in a country that you can be successful in and leave to the next generation -- i would say, in essence, do not look to someone else. look at yourself to what you want to do with your life and what kind of country want to live in, and participate in the process. are you in new hampshire person? even there she is from pennsylvania, she lives in new hampshire. here i am approving when new hampshire standards are -- what new hampshire standards are. is 20 years ok? 20 years is ok. >> i am from pittsburgh.
your father-in-law was a dear friend. >> he was a local pediatrician who did house calls. >> we are a lot alike, and i love that. we are also very different. i am a democrat. >> you are forgiven. >> you want me and others to change our beliefs, our thoughts, our values and a vote for you. i am dramatically involved in being pro-choice, but that means to me being pro-life. you are pro-life, but not pro- choice.
i know your wife was involved in a different world years ago in pittsburgh. but she changed. why should i? why should anybody change, or should we? >> thank you so much. that was a lovely way of presenting that. let me just say, what i go out and do is tell you what i believe and why i believe it. i leave it out there and say hopefully i have convinced you based on how i came to this. i have told this story many times about being pro-life. when i decided to run for congress, i was an agnostic on the abortion issue. i was a 30-year-old guy. i was not married at the time. i had not thought about abortion
as an issue that much. i had been an agnostic. it was not an issue that i really cared about. when i thought about running for office, i knew it was an issue people were going to care about. i met your pediatrician, my father-in-law. he was not my father-in-law at the time. he was my future father-in-law. we discussed it. at first from the standpoint of a scientist. he discussed the process, and how at the moment of conception, there is a unique individual, someone with unique dna who is alive, they're for human and alive. so, there is no question that at the moment of conception -- it is not a belief that that is a human being.
that is a human being. from the scientific point of view, there is no argument whether that is a human life. the question is whether that is a human life that should be protected under the constitution. that is the debate. at what point in time does that human being obtain rights that protect his life, protected from having its life taken? that is the issue. people can disagree. they say well, because that human life is in a certain developmental stage or because that human life is inside the body of somebody else, that person does not have as many rights as someone else. you can make a rational argument that that is the case, that someone, because they're positioned in a certain place and because they are at a certain developmental stage, has less rights than everybody else.
i do not think that is the right argument. i think the argument should be to respect the dignity of all human life. the constitution, as far as i can see, does not treat persons differently. it uses the term person. what is a person? it does not define person in the constitution. we are all supposed to know it. is a human life a person? if you answer the question yes, then a person is protected under the constitution of our country and cannot have it's life ended because it has rights. we are fighting a battle with the national defense authorization bill as to whether we can detain someone here without a hearing. here we're talking about taking someone's life, not detaining them, taking someone's life. if you believe that all human
lives are people, then you have a moral imperative to stand up for that belief. from that perspective, a person is a defined term that you can probably define a lot of different ways. i would make the argument that the most welcoming and open way, the one i would assume our founders would have wanted, would be to have an expansive definition of people. we would wanted to include everybody. it is another point of view to say, no, we're not going to include all people. here is the problem i have with that. obviously, i believe all human life should be considered people. if we say, well here are the things that do not make this human being a person. maybe it is the developmental brain waves.t they do not you can do all sorts of things to say that does not make them a
person. the problem is, you go to people later in life who maybe are depending on something else to be alive. there are a lot of people in this country depending on things to be alive, and i'm not sure we would say they are not a person. a concern of mine is that once that is ahat something ba human being is less, is not a person, then you open it up to allow the human being -- to allow the supreme court to decide who lives and who dies. my position is not anti- anything. it really is not. i see a fact and i see a constitutional provision and i cannot reconcile why we should differentiate. i understand those who do, but you have to understand why i do. it is not because i am against
anybody. [applause] >> i am not sure you respect mine. i am very pro-life. i am a professional. i am a psychologist. i work with children. i am pro-choice. that is the difference. i respect your view. i just would like you to respect mine. >> i do. here is what we're talking about before. you have a very strong opinion on what you believe is a% and respected by the -- what you believe is a person and respected by the constitution, and so do i.. you have every right to come into the public square and make your case. make your case to the people. i have every right to come into
the public square and take a position. here's the problem. that is not how it works. why? because we had five people, or maybe six it was, or even seven. yet seven people on the supreme court decide that decision. seven out of nine. we had seven people decide who between the two of us was right. let me assure you that that is not a perfect remedy. that is not what madison was thinking about. that is not how our country should operate. we should have this issue brought before the american people and have a collective judgment about what is the right thing to do. am i saying i would win? i have no idea. but to me that is the right way
to do it in america. and to me, this gets to the larger problem of judicial tyranny, judicial supremacy, of rising oligarchy, robbing you of your right to have this debate in the public square and decide collectively what we believe in. these are really important issues. why would you leave it to seven people to make this decision who are unaccountable to anybody? i mean, this does not make any sense. live free or die? is that freedom? to have seven people decide whether you can live or die? that is not freedom. i would make the argument that a repeal of roe versus wade would put abortion in an arena where the american public can make the decision. that is where i believe it belongs. [applause] >> i will give this young man an
opportunity to do something. >> our country was founded on the belief that all people are created equal. but in this country, if you are born straight, you can get married. but if you're born gay, you cannot get married, even though you can adopt and raise a family. why do not believe in allowing homosexuals to get married? [applause] >> i have answered that question repeatedly. i will answer it this way. i believe that marriage is a privilege not a right. not anybody or anything can get married. it is a privilege given to society with certain benefits that come from it and society has a right to collectively decide what they believe marriages. historically, as we know, for many, many years and throughout centuries and millennia, marriage has been defined as between a man and a woman for a
reason. women and men come together for the purpose of bonding together to form a family, to have children and to rear those children, which is what their and every child has a right to know it's mom and dad and to be raised by its mom and dad. that is the right. that does not mean that every child gets that right. obviously, there are lots of situations where children do not get that, and that is unfortunate. but we do not see that as a good thing. we see it as a good thing for mothers and fathers to raise their own children as a positive thing, and as a result, we give special status to that relationship. we know how intrinsically important it is to society to have these relationships. there are a lot of other very important relationships in society, french ships --
friendships and other relationships, but they are not given privileged status. well they should be valued and honored, they do not provide the intrinsic good to benefit the future society that marriage does, and that is why we granted a special privilege. [applause] [shouting] >> let me thank everybody here for coming. [shouting] what i would ask you to do is come out on tuesday, come out on tuesday -- [shouting]
i come from steel country, pennsylvania. this is nothing. we do not agree on everything, but we agree that this process works. thank you for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> are you ready for the debate, senator? what are you doing to prep? >> what have you learned from this town hall? >> my best friend went to caramel so i told him i would shake your hand.
>> we are here in new hampshire after the rick santorum event. we're going to talk to the crowd to get some reaction. what is your name? >> debbie. >> what brought you here today? >> i am a member of the republicans who hosted the event today. >> what was your expectation about the crowd size and what to think of what you saw? >> we knew it was going to be large, so we planned
accordingly. >> you had a couple hundred people outside. >> we did the best we could knowing the limitations of the space. >> are you a santorum supporter? >> i am still undecided at this point, but i have to say that he is striking a chord with me on his social conservatism and family values. >> what did you hear today that particularly resonated with you? >> i am looking for a leader who has character. i believe rick santorum has demonstrated that is who he is. he is somebody who has core beliefs. he is very principled and he is unwavering. i think that is what we need right now in this country. >> who are you looking at right now? >> being in new hampshire, i have the luxury of seeing them all. i have seen most of the candidates. i'm going to see ron paul on monday. i am definitely in the rick
santorum-rick perry, just a more conservative -- i am not a huge supporter of mitt romney. i'm not sure he is conservative enough for me. >> number one issue for you in this election? >> honesty and the truth. i am looking for a leader who is not going to tell me what i want to hear. i want him to tell me the truth. i want him to tell us exactly what is going on in the economy and what is going on on a global level. i do not want to be told what i want to hear. i want to know the truth, and i am looking for someone who has that kind of skill set. >> thank you for talking to us. we're going to take a couple of calls and also talk to people here as folks make their way through this quite busy spot. it was an overflow crowd of a couple hundred people who were not able to hear the candidates before the events guarded --
hear the candidate. before the event started, he talked for about 10 minutes outside. let's begin with a call from new hampshire. this is jim. you are on the air. caller: listening to rick santorum described roe versus wade as judicial tierney, i wonder what he would think about the judicial tyranny that installed george bush in the white house. as well as the idea that clean energy should be eliminated, essentially, from what he said. clean coal is totally ridiculous from job creation and policy. it is utterly ridiculous in my mind. that is my comment. thank you. host: thank you for your call. next up is wrong, a republican from massachusetts. you are on -- ron, a republican
from massachusetts. you are on. caller: after watching rick santorum, i think he is a clown. god help the republican party of the nominate him. he is scary. host: we were not in the room personally. the cameras were, so i cannot confirm, but tell me why you think he is scary. caller: he is totally out of the mainstream. he is divisive. he is trying to play the outsider. he is the ultimate washington insider. pennsylvania rejected him by over 19 points. if you look at the polls, he is doing very poorly in pennsylvania. he is totally unelectable. shame on the republicans if they end up with somebody like him. host: thank you for your call.
next up is a call from bethesda, md., a democrat named and. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think democrats, republicans are two sides of the same coin. the only one who is actually honest is ron paul. rick santorum is way too divisive. as much as he says he tries to tolerate other viewpoints, he just wants to inflict his moral views on the rest of the nation, which is pretty sad. the only one who is honest is ron paul. thank you. host: thank you for the call. next up, atlanta, a republican named luke. what did you think today? caller: i am catholic. rick santorum says he is
catholic, but he violates every principle of the catholic state. ron paul is what it is about. go ron paul. thank you. host: and reintroduce you to a gentleman who is here -- let me introduce you to a gentleman who is here selling political buttons. how is this year overall for you? >> we are putting gas in the gas tank and eating ramen noodles. we have santorum today, obviously. we brought the right buttons to the right event. it is a time honored tradition, a 200 year tradition, back to campaigns the first button. it is something for the candidate to sign. it is fun and games all the
time. host: are you seeing a difference as you go from event to event in the candidates themselves? >> the crowds are pretty good all over. we were just in iowa. they gradually pick up as we get closer to each caucus and primary. obviously santorum, with the momentum he has, he had an overflow crowd at the door. the fire marshal shut them down yesterday a couple times. obviously, closer to the day, the excitement grows. host: are you going to south carolina? >> we are. host: where are you from? >> florida. host: a long way from home for you. we're going to get some more calls. reaction to rick santorum and the overall gop primary here. we have been televising events for the past couple of days.
you have had an opportunity to size candidates up. the next caller is from cleveland. caller: i just want to comment on rick santorum's industrial policy. my family was on the steel mill for generations and his policy would really help us be able to increase our work force. i'm glad to hear someone actually talking about it. we do not really have that from either side. i guess you could tell me as a rick santorum supporter because of that. the social policies, people want to say he is a right-wing extremist. i do not agree with that. i think he is reasonable, and i like hearing his scientific approach to abortion. i thought that was intelligent. i think he is a good man and he will get my vote. host: who did you vote for in 2008? caller: i am 19, said this will be my first election.
host: thank you for calling us today. new hampshire, carolyn is calling us. did you see the event or did you watch it on tv? caller: i was watching it on channel 16, but then i drove up town to see what the parking situation was and then we decided to come back home. host: well, there was quite a crowd here so you probably had the warmer of the two choices. did you come out because you support him or have you made up your mind? caller: i have made up my mind, and it is jon huntsman. i met rick santorum last night. he is personal and pleasant. he is too far right on social issues for me. one of the other concerns i have, one of the reasons i like huntsman and romney too is there executive experience.
i feel santorum does not have that kind of management experience that i feel is very important. huntsman also has great international experience. i just wanted to call in and let you know how i was -- host: tell us how your candidate is doing with voters here in new hampshire. do you think he is connecting? caller: people i talked to when i say i am supporting huntsman, they all say he is the best, but he has not gotten hardly any public media coverage and it is very frustrating to me because i think he is an excellent candidate. host: thank you for calling in. we are live this afternoon at a rick santorum event in an old barn. it is quite a scenic location in this small town about 25 miles away from manchester.
next up is an oklahoma caller named lisa who is a republican. caller: i appreciate c-span so much for broadcasting these town hall meetings. i really enjoy watching them. i do not have my candidate picked out, but this is really helping me. i do want to say one thing about rick santorum. i was very impressed with the way he answered some questions. i think he did it with respect. he was able to state his opinions and still be respectful. host: thank you for your comment. we have another person here live. how are you? right this way. where is home for you? >> hancock, new hampshire. host: how far is that from here? >> about 40 minutes. host: why did you make a 40 minute drive today?
>> in a political want. every primary for the last 40 years -- i am a political wonk. every primary for the last 40 years, we have participated. host: how does this compare to past primaries? caller: much lower. it has been almost entirely electronic. there has been very little visibility of candidates at all. at this time in 2008, candidates have spent $27 million on the primary in new hampshire. this year it is two million, same time. people are not coming. it is nothing like it was before. host: are you suggesting maybe it is the end of an era for the new hampshire primary. >> i wonder. host: are you voting tuesday?
>> i am a democrat. host: well, you can vote, right? >> i am not going to. host: why are you sitting it out this time? >> there was not anyone i felt strongly enough about to vote and i am a supporter of president obama. host: thank you for your time. patricia, you are on the air. caller: i was just listening to the gentleman you were talking to, and it is sad, it is very sad. i honestly believe that no matter who is running, all of them have views and all of them want that view to be passed, but it is congress and it is the senate that is going to do it. we as a nation individually need
to get out there and speak to our senators and to our house of representatives and tell them what we want, what we need. until that happens, we are going to lose faith, just like that man just said. host: for you, patricia, are you voting tuesday? caller: i am not putting tuesday because i am now in the state of vermont, but i lived in new hampshire for 30 years and i always listen to the campaigns. i just got in the habit of doing it. so, i see -- i mean, i cannot miss it. the amount of energy that they are taking to speak their views, you need the people behind them
to truly believe in them and to have the senate and congress make the decisions that you want, not what they want. like he was saying, seven judges will make decisions for us all. that is wrong. we the people need to stand up and talk. tell them what we want. that is what i believe. host: thank you for your call. she said seven judges on the supreme court. we are talking about nine. next up is roger, a democrat. caller: i just want to make a comment about the debt ceiling that i heard the ex-senator talking about, which was not factual, in other words, it was a lie.
president obama -- he said president obama said he would not get your social security checks and soldiers would not get their social security checks. he said they may not if the government shutdown. it was a possibility. the other thing is, if you take social security at 62, it may not last the rest of your life. you take a big cut by going in and 60 two instead of 65. i just wish he would not lie so much. thank you very much. host: thank you. senator santorum is going right down the road to a pharmacy for another stop. our cameras are not going to be
there. then he, like the other candidates, are spending the rest of the day preparing for tonight's debate. we're going to say good bye from new hampshire, but the c-span coverage of the primary will continue all three tuesday. thank you for being with us. >> we head now to veterans memorial park in manchester where occupy new hampshire and some other groups have been holding rallies today. as susan mentioned earlier, the gop debate will be held tonight in manchester as well. this part serves as a memorial for the country's major wars as well as a rallying point. it is also the site of festivals and fairs in the area. we're just going to take a look at the gathering here for a few moments.
>> just taking a look at some of the sights and sounds here in new hampshire at the occupy rally taking place all day today. the candidates debate will be held about 3 miles away from here at st. ann's them college here in manchester later tonight. "washington journal" is live tomorrow morning, also from new hampshire, ahead of tuesday's first in the nation primary. we will be hearing from the chair of the democratic national committee, debbie wasserman schultz. she will talk about obama campaign in new hampshire. and former presidential candidate and consumer advocate ralph nader will talk about his latest book, "only the super rich can save us a." finally, we will hear from michael sing from the washington institute on mideast policy on u.s. relations with iran. that is all tomorrow morning starting at 7:00 a.m. on
>> i want a tax code that clears out all of the -- >> western new hampshire primary coverage on c-span television and on our website, c-span.org. >> in some of the latestmitt ron new hampshire, with 45% of voters. newt gingrich is in third. newt gingrich, earlier today. this is about an hour. -- mitt romney, earlier today. this is about an hour. [applause]
[applause] >> good morning. how are you doing today? it is wonderful to be with you here, i and pinkerton. i have the privilege -- privilege of representing you in the senate. i have -- why are we here this morning? we are here because we are worried about america and the future of the american dream.
that is why i am here. i love our country. i love my two children. four years old, seven years old. i am really worried about the future our great country. but, i am so encourage because i am here today with mitt romney. [applause] we have a president right now, if you think about the state of our country, we have accumulated $15 trillion in debt. under this president, we have accumulated $5 trillion of that debt. we lost 1.7 million jobs in this country. ladies and gentlemen, we cannot afford another four more years of barack obama. [applause]
so, on tuesday, you have the opportunity here, in the granite state, the live free or die state, to nominate someone for president of the united states of america who is a strong conservative leader. someone who has private sector experience. who actually knows how the economy works and how to get america working again. [applause] that person is mitt romney. you also have the opportunity to nominate someone in the running who knows that we need to protect america. who will listen to his military commanders, when he serves the commander in chief, -- as
commander-in-chief, instead of his pollsters and political advisers. he knows that we need to protect america. whenever you think about the $15 trillion in debt, -- when you think about that $15 trillion in debt, mitt romney has the experience as governor where he had a deficit, he turned it around and made it a surplus, and balance the budget. unlike the current occupant of the white house. we need his experience in washington right now. [applause] so, i am asking you, please, the future of america is at stake. the land of opportunity. the opportunities that we want for my children, your children, for this great country.
that is what is at stake in this great country. you have the power on tuesday to nominate someone who will turn our country around and preserve the american dream. i ask you to get out on tuesday and vote for mitt romney. please, talk to your friends and family. do not sit on the sidelines. this is too important for the stadium -- for the state of america. we are so privileged today, when you think about the conservative leaders who are leading our country forward, to have a wonderful, wonderful conservative leader here today. the governor of south carolina, nikki caylee, is someone who is a fiscal conservative. someone who is pro-family and the mother of two children
herself. she has proven it as the governor of south carolina. you can govern to make sure that you preserve the american dream. she is supporting that romney, as are so many conservative leaders across this country. [applause] it is my honor today to introduce the great governor from south carolina, nikki haley, and to welcome her to the granite state. [applause] >> let me tell you, i am so excited. we had a blast in new hampshire. you know what i found out? the people here are the same as the people in south carolina, and all across this country.
what do we want? we want elected officials to remember who it is that there were four. they were for the people and not the other way around. we want an elected officials to remember the value of a dollar and that how they spend that money matters. it is not their money that they are spending, it is the people's money. they have got to be responsible with it. [applause] so, why is the conservative governor of south carolina coming to new hampshire to talk to you? let me tell you why. in my first year in office, i knew that we would have to deal with unemployment. i knew that we would have to make tough budget cuts. but i did not know that the hardest part of my job would be the federal government. they get in my way every single
time. the number one person that keeps me from doing my job is president obama. let me give you this one example of how we had to handle that in south carolina. we had this great company they're called boeing. they came and created 1000 jobs at a time that we really needed it. at the same time, they expanded their work force in washington state by 2000 jobs. not one person was hurt. president obama and the national labor relations board came in and told them that boeing could not do that. for the last year-and-a-half we have said that we are a strong right to work state and we should have the ability to have those 1000 jobs. [applause]
guess what? we knocked down their lawsuit. the second thing we said is that this is not just campaign talking points. no state can afford obama care. south carolina will go bankrupt if we try to pay for obama care. what we have continued to receive from the federal government, the me tell you what mitt romney said he would do. he said that day one, they would push to repeal obama care from this country. [applause] we passed illegal immigration reform in south carolina. guess what, this up -- the federal government stepped in to say that we could not do that.
the federal government said that if you have to show a picture id to get on a plane, you should have -- we said that if you're out to show picture identification to get on a plane, -- that if you have to show a picture identification to get on a plane, you have to do that for vote. guess what? the department of justice is fighting me on that as well. i have been sued by the union, the department of justice, the aclu, and last week jesse jackson was talking smack. you know who is helping them? president obama. this is why i know that this is the right partner to have in the white house if i am going to be governor of south carolina. [applause] let me tell you why this matters. the main issues that we all care about -- jobs, the economy,
spending, we have got to get it under control. what do you do? we do not want anyone that has anything to do with washington. it is chaos. we cannot have it. second, it is not what you say, it is what you do. and he has done it. when he had 25 years in the private sector, he fixed broken companies. our country is broken. he took a failed olympics and made it a source of pride. we need that cried again with this failing economy. when he went into massachusetts, ha he cut -- , he cut taxes 14 times. we could use that margin right now. [applause] michael and i are part of a strong military family. i will tell you that we need a president that will strengthen and back up the meat -- the
military. not weaken them and apologize for it. [applause] so, get excited, new hampshire. this is what i mean. we do not just need a win. we need a landslide. [applause] let me tell you why we need a landslide. guess where he is going next? south carolina. [applause] mitt romney is going to win south carolina, by the way. make it easier for us, go out there and tell people to get out and vote. all eyes are on new hampshire. they are watching to see how strong of a support you will send him to south carolina with. take care of him here in new hampshire. u.k. -- i will take care of him
in south carolina. and he will take care of us in the white house. god bless you. thank you very much. [applause] >> thank you. i am excited to be here this morning, saturday morning. thank you. you are the best. thank you. [applause] fresh from the landslide in iowa [laughter] could be double that number? i sure want to win. i tell you, do not get too confident with those poll numbers. i watch them come and go. it changes quickly and can be very fluid. i need to make shoot -- make sure that you and your friends next door in massachusetts vote as well. you have a supportive contingency here, by the way.
[laughter] we had a senate president and billy bolger -- named billy bolger. he used to joke that the fbi came to him and said that they had counted in the triple decker -- you know what that is, the triple decker across the street had moved 257 tons in the last election. you guys get out there, make sure the vote. by the way, for me this is family. i have got family here as well. my sweetheart, anne. come on up here. [applause] >> you never know what is going to happen when he gives me a
microphone. look out. i see lots of friends here. governor, john sununu, hello. i came in and saw two of my brothers year. wave. that was fabulous. we feel energized by being in this state. as in no, we have a summer home here. we know how beautiful this state is. we want to keep a secret, but it might not be if he becomes the next president. so, i apologize for that. can we bring up the rest? come on. these are my sons. [applause] and jennifer. [applause] i did, yes. johnnie? my son ted. joseph, thomas, and jennifer.
thank you for coming. >> his 16-year-old daughter would be here, but she slept in. [laughter] this is family for us. raise your hands again. one of her brothers is a doctor in california. the other in travels across the world. i was thinking of their dad and my wife's that. the same person, by the way. he was born in wales. his father was a coal miner. he was injured in an accident at the coal mine and decided to take great risk to leave the country and come to america. he came here for the reason that all of our ancestors did. for opportunity.
how many kids? four? they concluded that education was important if america was going to have a bright future. public education was available, but they knew they had to get college. but college was expensive. with the money that they were making, they knew that they could not afford college. they came together as a family to pool their income and give all of their money to one of them to get into college. they all sacrificed for that one to be -- to get a degree. that happened to be, luckily for me, anne's dad. he got a degree, then he hired his brothers and his sisters, well, his sister's husband's. that should be the story of america. people coming here and achieving
their dreams. i love this country. i love what it is. it is the essence of this country. i do not think that we have a president right now that understands the nature of power and freedom. i want to bring these things back to america so that we have a brighter future for our kids. [applause] at this academy, four years ago today, candidate barack obama was here, speaking. he said that he would bring big things to america. well, he did. but they came with big price tags and they did not wait -- worked out so well. he brought obama care. we do not want obama care. he brought massive deficits. he had been critical of the president, saying that president bush had large deficits. he has put in place deficits
three times as large. if you look at the public debt of the nation's balance sheet, by the end of his first and only term -- [applause] he will have put in as much debt as all the president's prior to him. a big thing. a bad thing. this most recent thing, a huge, 2000 pages. the big banks are smiling. they have hundreds of lawyers to deal with these regulations. it is the community banks. the banks to give loans to small businesses and of sharpeners. -- entrepreneurs. he says that after the many years following fdr, we have had a single strategy for our national defense.
to have a military strong enough to fight two wars of the same time. hopefully never have to do it, but have the capacity. he change that policy as of a couple of days ago. he said he would shrink the military. let me make it clear, but the way. i want a military that is superior to any else in the world, by a large margin. yes. [applause] not just so that we can be successful in conflict, but so that we can avoid conflict. a military that is superior to others, i want to protect america's strength and security. i do not want president obama's big, bad things. expensive things. let's protect america with a strong military. [applause]
another big thing. how about borrowing $787 billion in a stimulus bill that promised to keep unemployment below 8%. we have not seen unemployment below 8% cents. it has now been 35 straight months above 8%. by the way, that is nothing to write home about. that is an exceptionally high level of unemployment. millions of americans unable to find jobs. this president has failed in almost every dimension. i remember when he said on "the today show." he said that if he could not get this economy turned around in three years, he is looking at a one-term proposition. we are here to collect. we are here to take back. [applause]
i am asked what things i will do to get people back to work. there are a lot of things. one, i want to get pioneers and job creators back to america. i want to get regulations working for industry. i want to get america secure in energy by using our oil and coal and nuclear. [applause] i want to open up new markets for american goods and make sure that when people she to and steal our technology -- no more will china run all over us and we will pretend like it is not happening. [applause] look at the budget. people ask -- how can we ever balance the budget? a funny thing, we have -- we
revel to balance the budget in massachusetts every year. [chanting from the back] we have some people that want to make themselves heard. how're you doing? [lots of chanting and yelling] we are lucky to live in a country where those people are able to express their views. i love that freedom in this great country. it is best when we do it with respect and civility. let me tell you how we are going to balance the budget. we have the chance in massachusetts. this is the total contingent of republican legislators, it seems like, in massachusetts. it was 85% democrat and we
balanced the budget every year. how did we do that? we went through, listed the programs, and decided which ones we had that have and some of the ones that were just nice to have, we eliminated or cut back on. i will ask the question -- is this program so essential that it is worth using money from china to pay for it? obama care is the first one on the list. look at that. [applause] you guys, as important as jobs are, and the need to get our economy going again -- as important as it is to finally reign in the scale of the federal government and return to the principles of the federal government, i hope we recognize
that this is about something even more defining, in some respects. that is the direction of this country and the kind of america that we will have. are we going to remain true to the principles that the nation was founded on? are we going to be a merit society? in a marriage society, people are able to achieve rewards based on their education and willingness to work hard, willingness to take risk. their success lists the only themselves, but those that they employ and the whole nation. america's prosperous because of this society. when the founders crafted the society and the declaration of independence, they said we had certain on elite civil-rights -- certain unalienable rights. there recognize that in this
land, like i and others, we would be free to pursue it as we choose. this would be a mayor of society. it drove us to be the most prosperous nation on earth. i know the people are looking for some other model. they do not like free enterprise or capitalism. i know this is not perfect, but it is a heck of a lot better than anything else has ever been tried. [applause] there are those that say -- let's not cut down that path. let's not become a european- style welfare society. where we take from some and give to others. it sounds good, it creates kate -- greater quality. but it also creates poverty. even in europe, which is not as free enterprise oriented as we are, the income per person is 50% less than in this country.
it is an amazing thing, the power of what was crafted in this country. europe is not working in europe. i want to give america true to the principles that made it the hope of the earth. [applause] now, i have some favorite national hymns. one that i have been speaking about for the last few days is america the beautiful. you know the weight -- you knew you -- you know the words of that, right? in iowa, i used to say that corn qualified as an amber waves of grain. .or purple mountains' majesty there is another person i love. o beautiful, for heroes proved in liberating strife, who more than self their country loved
and mercy more than life. do we have many veterans or members of the armed forces here? raise your hand. thank you. thank you, sir. thank you. thank you. thanks, ma'am. what a patriotic nation. [applause] we love those that serve this great country. there is another first of which should not forget. o beautiful, for patriot dream that sees beyond the years. the idea was not temporary. it was in during. -- enduring. those that would change america, going in the right direction, bringing people back to who we are. a passion for the constitution and patriotism where a family
could come together and sacrificed to give them the opportunity to live their family, and others. i will restore america to those principles. stop borrowing too much money. [applause] i want to make sure that we balance the budget and get americans working again. i want to make sure we are prosperous. that we have the military capacity to stand up to our challenges around the world. we are the only people who put our hand over our hard during the playing of the national anthem. the tradition started with fdr and the sons and daughters of far off places. i love america. we love america. i am convinced that if we have
michael singh will talk about iran. that is tomorrow morning, at 7:00 am eastern, here on c-span. shad, lake, on "newsmakers," region -- chad connely, on "newsmakers." >> our road to the white house political coverage takes you on the campaign trail. look at town halls, campaign rallies, and meet and greet.
but >> thank you for coming. it was enjoyable. >> it was a pleasure. >> i have a question for you about bringing manufacturing back to the united states. what are your plans to do that? going after the big companies that send work overseas? >> watch your new hampshire primary coverage on c-span television and our website, c- span.org. >> in central new hampshire, newt gingrich held a town hall meeting in wolfeboro. the former reagan national security advisor and former senator bob smith will make remarks as well.
currently, the former house speaker is third in the latest polls, behind mitt romney and ron paul. [applause] i am really pleased to be up here. my son went to brewster academy. we would come up here all the time. a great area of the state to live in. i am here for an important reason today. to talk to you about the candidate i have endorsed for president of the united states. the reason i have endorsed him is the reason i am involved in politics. since my third term in the house, i have moved forward into the speakership quickly. one of the reasons i think i was able to is, as i became
involved and spent the first term in the legislature, i began to realize that the republican party in new hampshire had a problem. it was that we were not presenting to the people of new hampshire a clear, a conservative alternative. we we are republicans because we believe in liberty and personal responsibility and a government that should be a modest government, that should be turned to as the last resort, not the first resort. government that should assume we are adults and we can care for ourselves and make decisions for ourselves. when i came into the legislature i was confronted with a republican party that, when talked to people they had got but they didn't think the people of new hampshire
would respond to that kind of message. we had spend -- spent decades being embarrassed about being republicans. some of us in the legislature decided that the conservative message is an attractive message. it is message that speaks to what is the essence of being an american and we had to get out there and talk to people about it. the failure to do that over time not only led to decreasing numbers of republicans in new hampshire, it led to decreasing majorities in the legislature and four years of a democratic legislature. during that time, after we had suffered those defeats, those of us who remained said we are going to come forward with a strong, strong republican message and we are going to present to the people of new
hampshire a clear alternative to what it means to be a republican and a democrat, a clear alternative between what it means to be a liberal progressive and conservative. we think we were right that the people of new hampshire respond to that. when we did that we were able to get 75% majorities in the house. [applause] as i told you, we decided that this message is one that will be successful on the level, and i submit that this is a message we have to take to the people of the united states. we can't any longer have those who build themselves as the party establishment saying to us be embarrassed about being a conservative, be embarrassed about the strong message of liberty and limited government that we say we stand for but we
don't nominate candidates who will promote. that is the reason that i have taken a very strong position in supporting newt gingrich. we can't have a candidate who is a massachusetts moderate, a timid candidate who will go to washington and be the tax collectors for the democrats. go to washington and fix the problems that are caused but not limit the opportunities for those problems to arise again. a republican who will say i have to tax you but i feel bad about doing it. when we put the budget together in new hampshire we made a clear choice. we said no more taxes. we are going to shrink government. we reduced state spending this budget by almost 18%. i ask you among the presidential candidates who has the history
of doing that, who has the doing that, who has the principles of doing that, and it is not a one-term massachusetts governor who left with a 34% approval rating. that is the necessity of us turning around from this disastrous presidency, this presidency that sent us one favor, what he has done is chew on 50 years of creeping socialism into three years and he has shown us that change is needed, transformative change and there is one candidate who has the history, the experience, the ability and track record that will turn around this country and that candidate is newt gingrich. i'm so pleased to be able to come to you and endorse him and ask you to listen to him. before he comes on, we have a
great american here who i pt wa to introduce to you. that is just someone i'm thrilled to have had the opportunity to meet, a true americ who has an american had a history of both in the military and following his military career of defending this country. bud, if you can come up here, i would appreciate it. thank you. >> good morning. thanks to each of you for coming o out. this is a great, very warm show of support for newt gingrich. i will be very brief. the two blessings of my life i treasure most are having served for 20 years in the u.s. marine corps and secondly working for -- [applause]
>> secondly, having had the good fortune to work for president reagan for five years. [applause] >> i mention that because that record of service to our country was service at a time when the conventional wisdom was that we were going to have to endure a soviet threat forever, that nothing we could do about that. it was a policy called detente. president reagan came to office and he said this idea that things always have to be the way they have been is nonsense. this is an evil empire. we can bring it down. we can reform our own government. we can make it smaller. these were heretical ideas even in the republican party, at the time. but he did it. and today we look back on five years in which he brought down
marxism, ended the cold war, reduced nuclear weapons, in short change is feasible with good leadership. in those years i had the good fortune to meet newt gingrich. here was another man who didn't believe that things had to be the way they had always been. you could change them. you could write a contract with america to reform welfare, to balance the budget, and actually do it. this is leadership of an extraordinary nature. in the years ahead, we are going to face an un commcommon, truly complex daunting agenda of threats to national security. a family of threats that includes cyber security threats. the ability of subversives to bring down our banking system,
to mess up your bank accounts and credit cards, also your electric power grid and every electronic system that truly has begun to control most of what we do from dawn to dusk every day. you are going to face threats that include the ability to use biological weapons and bring about mass casualties. you are going to face also the threat from iran and others the proliferation of nuclear weapons. why do i mention these? well, because somebody, our president, has to have given a lot of thought to these issues to understand the nature of cyber threats and what we do it.t how can you harden our systems, improve them, make them resistant to these kinds of threats and overcome them?
when i look at the family of people running for office this year, only one stood out. first having studied for years the nature of these threats, where they come from, what is the nature of the technology and how do we overcome them. that was newt gingrich. nobody else has given thought to these things running for the presidency. secondly, it's one thing to know the nature of the problem and another to get it done. newt gingrich has gotten it done. no else balanced the budget for four years, moved the entire federal tkpwhoft to a very -- government to a very different way of thinking that we can do
the this? he also brings the presidency a knowledge of how to move the u.s. congress, how to go against congress srepbgsal wisdom -- conventional wisdom, and show the kind of leadership that president reagan did only 25 years ago. nobody else in this race has those qualities of knowledge and experience. i'm here because i believe in newt gingrich. he can do this. he is the only one who can do this. you to get out -- you have to get out and support this man. our country is at risk. only he can do it. it is an honor, truly, to be here today with you and introduce the next president of the united states, speaker newt gingrich. [applause]
we built right at the end of world war ii and was the first modern tank replacing the sherman. so, from an army brat standpoint this brings back lots of memories. from a political standpoint, i look at this tank lovingly, because i remember michael dukak dukakis. [laughter] >> and it is just a remind er that governors of massachusetts don't always make good presidential candidates. now, before i get started and i want to say briefly some things about the two great people who introduced me. there is somebody else i want to have a chat with a minute. you have a favorite son right a here that i was thrilled who
called and he said it is so important that a reagan conservative win and he wanted to come volunteer and went virtually full-time and that senator bob smith. i just want to ask bob to come up for a minute. do we have a microphone? [applause] >> there we go. just come and talk to the hometown folks. >> thank you, mr. speaker. this is his show and i just want say thank you for coming and thank you for coming to see speaker gingrich. in 1984, when i was elected i walked into the congress, didn't really know where the bathroom was and here is a congressman from georgia who came over to talk to me and said before you get involved with the minutia you content to be in the minority here and fighting this liberal majority of democrats or do you really want to take the ball -- bull by the horns. i said the answer is obvious and
we met, about 10 of us in a closet called the conservative opportunity society in the and it is true. we plotted the revolution, but it is not finished. the reason why i left key largo to be up here in the cold of new hampshire is because i believe in this man. we need him desperately right now. [applause] >> i can't tell you how much i mean that. he and his wife produced this movie about ronald reagan. if you saw that movie and you reali all of reagan's dreams, all of the things that he wanted to do, we helped him in the house and in the senate in those days when he was there, thanks to newt, we would probably still be a minority if not for him and we need to finish that revolution to honor reagan. this man can do it. he has the philosophy and
conservative principles and values. he is a reagan conservative through and through. let's finish the revolution and elect newt gingrich here next tuesday. thank you, mr. speaker. >> thank you, bob. [applause] >> before i get started, how many of you are either veterans or families of veterans? virtually all of you. we all you a real debt of gratitude and i want to say thank you for coming to this vetera veterans rally. without your willingness to risk everything -- when you swear the oath entering the armed services you are basically signing over your life to the commander in chief and wearing this is the flag that george washington flew at valley forge in front of his command headquarters. this is the flag of the
commander in chief of the army.an when they met in philadelphia, he presided over the constitutional convention. so, when they wrote into the constitution the president is he command are in chief -- commander in chief, they knew what he meant. not a advisor in chief or talker in chief or politician in chief. he bears -- or she -- bears the ultimate moral responsibility for the defense of the united states and defeat of our enemies. that is how real this is. when you signed up, you gave that commander in chief control over your life. because you did that, we are today still a free nation. without our veterans we would not today be a free nation. so, i'm thrilled to be here and i thank you. two great folks who introduced me, speaker o'brien is the model
of what we need. [applause] what he and his taoeteam -- and he is good in reminding you that it is the team -- what he and the team did when they confronted a budget deficit they smartest things i have heard. my jaw dropped when he toad me. they started by having the ways an means committee report how much money was coming in. he then said ok, we can pass any budget up to that amount. as you know, normally what politicians do is figure out how much they want to spend and that leaves them with a shortfall so they figure out how much they have to take away from you. and they ended up cut being 18% out of the new hampshire based expenditures and 11% if you
count federal funding. i don't know of any state with a more courageous effort to protect the average tax family in new hampshire from $3,000ish taxes. they set priorities, cut out waste, made decisions, everything that the u.s. congress and president refuses to do. one reason i'm campaigning is i would like to make washington more like tpharp where as the left would like to make new hampshire more like washington. there is also a huge huge difference between speaker o'brien and his team that represent a tea party small government movement and governor romney who campaigned on no tax increase in 2002 and passed a $730 million tax increase, most in the form of fees which were by the way mandatory. the two that are most amazing there was a tax on people who were blind, which is a little
hard to imagine but true. the other was a tax on gun ownership. you had to register guns in massachusetts and pay $100 per gun every year under romney. it was a tax increase on the second amendment right in my judgment. the difference between raising taxes because you don't have the courage to cut government and cutting government because you refuse to raise taxes is a dramatic difference. second, i'm glad to have bud mcfarlane here. he was national security advisor and did a great job. one reason is unlike a lot of politicians who end up in washington bud came out of a military background and he thought his job was to help the president be effective not maneuver around the president. because he had in ronald reagan a president who knew what he intended to do, a president who was calmly and methodical ly
determined to defeat the soviet empire, bud played a decisive role in one of the most important administrations we had because reagan had a clear vision. when i talk about being a reagan conservative, i first met him in 1974. i campaigned in 1979 and 1980 and helped develop supply side economics and worked with the reagan administration for eight years. he set out to accomplish three things. he understood something really important about leadership. lions can't afford to hunt chipmunks because even if they catch them they starve to death. so, lions have to hunt zebra and antelope. reagan got up every morning and said what are my antelope, and there were three. rebuild the american economy. and he had a clear strategy i will talk about.
re tp renew american civic culture so we were proud to be american. defeat the soviet empire. these are pretty big. he would then go in the oval office about 10:00 in the morning and chipmunks run in. these are big chipmunks -- i'm bud recognizes this. reagan would listen patiently because he was a very disciplined, positive person. he would say you are a terrific chipmu chipmunk. have you met jim baker? jim baker, the president's chief of staff, became the largest chipmunk collector on the planet. i learned a lot about leadership. the news media misunderstood. it was not that he was disengaged. he had two boxes in his head, a chipmunk box that was pat them on the head and get rid of them. then he had an antelope box that
was get them done thflt is a great study in real leadership. reagan wants to accepted a signal. he got down into the weeds if the weeds involved the big issues. george y of state schultz told me this story. reagan will gone to berlin as governor in 1967. that wall sure is ugly, they ought to tear it down. >> i was there. >> you were there. pretty good. there you go. and the wall was ugly and they should have torn it down. 20 years later president is re-elected president and carried 49 states. he is going to go back to berlin and he has this line that he wants to deliver. mr. gorbachev, tear down this wall. now, the state department hated
the line. they thought it made gorbachev feel bad. it didn't sound presidential. and it wasn't going to happen. so, the speech goes from the white house over to the state department and the state department editor takes out the li line. goes back to the white house. reagan personally writes in. back to the state department. they take out the line. this is secretary schultz that told me this. comes back to the white house. reagan calls secretary of state. he says georgie, you need to tell your editor i am the president, they aren't. the line stays in. what is amazing is they get to berlin. that morning before he goes to give the speech there are still senior advisors saying to him please don't give this line. it is not going to happen. wall is going to be there for 30 more years.
you are going to look foolish. it is one of the greatest lines of his presidency and the wall fell in two years. real leadership understands the principles that matter, the correct vision of the future, and the courage to impose your will when every timid person around you is scared to death the fact that what you are about to do is foolish because as a leader you believe in doing what is right no matter what the staff thinks. and that is the key. [applause] >> that is why i think a bold reagan conservative can defeat barack obama decisively, whereas a timid massachusetts moderate will have a much harder time pause what you -- when you are facing a fund with a billion dollars the support of the elite news media and power of the
white house you want to create a big gap. so i'm for american energy, he is against it. i'm for paychecks, he is for food stamps. i'm for lower taxes, he is for higher taxes. i'm for helping every american create jobs, he is for class warfare. you want the gap to be that big because most of his billion dollars falls in the middle. reagan took on carter. carter was a milder version of obama equally bad performance but not as wildly radical. and reagan really was able to draw such a vivid comparison that it made a huge difference. so, no matter what carter did the comparison stuck. that is why reagan, the only time they debated he went there you go again. carter would make a charge, reagan would say there you go again and people would laugh and they got it. let me talk about two issues
that relate a great deal to veterans and new hampshire. first i want to talk about the northern pass. you have my commitment that i will do everything i can to ensure that the only way that happens is if it is buried un r underground along state right of way. [applause] we have the technology today that we do not have to choose between delivering electricity to boston and the tourist industry and beauty of northern new hampshire. we can insist on a technological ly advanced solution which the state could make money from by leasing part of the right of way so you don't have to get into eminent domain and go into the taking of private property. i would suggest that that allows us to have a win-win solution that enables quebec electricity to arrive in the big city without having run over
everybody in between. i think that there is no reason to assume that in america everybody in between needs to get run over just so that big cities and big businesses can get what they want. seconds, i think it is profound profoundly wrong that in mid winter. veterans have to go all the way to boston to get healthcare. i'm committed to three things that i want you to know about for veterans in new hampshire. first, i'm committed to the manchester hospital as a full service facility, not just an outpatient clinic. [applause] >> second, i'm committed to developing a very sophisticated clinic in the north country that uses telemedicine so you can get a very high percentage of all of your diagnostics and treatment without going to manchester.
[applause] >> third, i'm committed to an effective program that enables to use your refer, local doctor and local hospital so you don't have to travel. [applause] >> i say this as the son of a 27-year career soldier and someone who values military families and veteran families and knows what you have to go through. it seems that all you ever have to do to explain this is get somebody off the congressional committee in late january or early february to come to northern new hampshire and put him in a car and let them try to get to boston. if you pick the right welcoek w the right blizzard they will get the idea. then if they hit three moose on the way they will thoroughly understand why it is the wrong thing. let me talk briefly about jobs and the economy because this is
a big deal. let me draw an historical comparison. because i don't say much that is theoretical. i'm a history teacher and i try to use facts and history. last month we created 200,000 jobs and the obama administration is dancing in the streets and i have to admit compared to some of the months they had 200,000 beat nothing. but here is what we have to remember. in august of 1983, with reagan, we created 1,3 million jobs in one month, six times the number. why does that matter? you have a real crisis in europe that is still sitting there with the euro decaying and european banks decaying. you have the potential for a real crisis in the middle east with the iranians practicing close being the straits of hormuz and they have one out of every six barrels of oil go through it. if either of those happens next
spring, this coming spring, you could see the entire world tilt into a much deeper recession. the only engine big enough to pull the world economy is the united states. we are still one-fourth of the world economy. when we grow, the sheer momentum of our growth changes things. now, this is why i'm running for president. because we know how to do this. this is one of those things where the academic left and news media left and political left is just so dense that you wonder what happened to them. it is as though they had a cook book that said to get a hard egg you put it in the freezer. now, it is true, if you want to test this, the young people may want to try this as an experiment, put an egg in the freezer a couple of days and it
will become hard. it is just that when you go to t the restaurant and say i would like a hard egg if they brought you a frozen egg you would think they were nuts. reagan had five principles for economic growth. strong money, he wanted a sound dollar. lower taxes, incentivize people to work and invest. less regulation so people could foggy on entrepreneurship and not red tape. american energy. and -- [applause] >> and praising the people who create jobs. what is the obama model? bernanke and obama are for inflation. the money they are printing they are just storing up a wave of inflation. under carter it got to be 13% inflation and 22% interest
rates. opposite. reag reagan, lower taxes. obama higher taxes. reagan, less red tape. obama, more power to e.p.a., osha, you name t. reagan, more energy. reagan, i love people who create jobs. i pt want to praise small busin owners and people that work. obama, let's start class warfare and attack everybody who is successful. is it any wonder you have this gap? so, i have grown from the reagan model. i helped develop it in the 1970's and implement it in the 1980's. and it was a bipartisan model. tip o'neill feels speaker of the house. we had to get one in every three democrats to vote for it, and we did. because we reached out to everybody. we tried to develop an american
program, not just a republican program. so, i get to be speaker, there were two tax increases after down., the economy slowed i pulled out the same cook book. we reformed welfare, two out of three people went to work or went to school. we passed the first tax cut in 6 16 years. created 11 million new jobs in four years, unemployment dropped to 4.2%. and here is one of the keys. if you take somebody off welfare and unphroeufplt and food -- unemployment and food stamps and medicaid and public housing and put them to work taking care of their family and paying bills and paying taxes you raise the revenue of the government without raising taxes and reduce the spending. so, clinton and i were able to hammer out four consecutive balanced budgets, paid off $405 billion of debt.
the only time you had four consecutive balanced budgets. [applause]. this is part of why speaker o'brien and i identify with one another because we both believe in balanced budgets. now, in that context what would you do today? well, i'm for sound money. i would fire bernanke, shrink the role of the fed -- [applause] >> i would focus the fed on a stable dollar. second, taxes. zero capital gains tax so money pours into the united states. 12.5% corporate tax rate would free up $700 billion overseas and for the liberal friends at 12.5% general electric will actually pay taxes.
100% expensing. you don't realize how much precision manufacturing there is in new hampshire. what you want to do is have 100% being, which means whether you are a factory, farmer, doctor, business, if you buy new equipment you write it off in one year. the goal is simple. we want american workers to be the best equipped workers in the world with the greatest productivity. it is the only way to have a high value job competing with china and india. if you do that on the equipment side i would also modernize the unemployment compensation program by having a training requirement attached to it so if you need unemployment compensation you have to sign up for business training courses to learn a new skill so we never again pay somebody 99 weeks for doing nothing. [applause]
>> two other tax provisions. we would abolish the death tax permanently because it is a destructive tax which is immoral. [applause] >> and at a personal tax level you can keep the current reductions and red tape or have an optional 15% flat tax in the hong kong tradition, fill out one page and this is what i earned, the number of invents, here is -- dependents, here is my tax. if you do that hong kong has done this for 40 years. we are not taking anybody's deductions. we give you the choice of simplicity versus complexity. [applause] >> now you come to regulatory. pretty straightforward. you want to fix this country quickly? i would ask the new congress january 3, 2013, to stay in
session and i would ask them before the inaugural to repeal obama care. [applause] >> that is the biggest job killing component of regulatory behavior. seconds, repeal the dodd-frank bill which is killing small banks. cripples small business and drivers down the price of housing. i would ask them to repeal sarbanes-oxley that has added paperwork and gained nothing. i would like them done before january 20 so when i'm sworn in they can bring them in and in the first 24 hours sign the repeal of all three and get to work in a positive way. on the inaugural i would have a series of executive orders about two hours after the inaugural address, the first of which would abolish all of the white house czars as of that moment.
[applause] >> other regulatory reform. we should replace the environmental protection agency with a brand-new environmental agency.s we should not rehire any of the radicals currently trying to destroy the american economy. [applause] >> everywhere i go the municipalities tell me how they are being dictated to by washington bureaucrats who have never visited there town, have no concern about the budget and issue washington dictates that are destructive and the e.p.a. is the largest job killing agency in the federal government. i would also go to a 21st food and drug administration on a simple model. we want the f.d.a. in the laboratory understanding the new science and we want them to
accelerate getting it to the patient, not block it. that will change everything. it will create hundreds of thousands of high value added jobs allowing us to dominate the health market which is the biggest market in the emerging world and enable us to get to patients better ways of saving their lives faster at lower cost so the duty of the f.d.a. is to turn it up side down. it is today an obstruction to bringing new science to patients and it is stunningly expensive and guaranteeing that the breakthroughs will occur in china or india because our lab scientists are going overseas to develop their products. they won't try to work through the f.d.a. that is example. now let's talk about insurance. i have a very simple model. i'm for every form of american energy. and there is a simple principle. i want america not just to be energy independent but to have a surplus so if something happens
in the straits of hormuz we can step in and make sure the world avoids a depression. i want to get to a point where no american president ever bows to saudi king, period. [applause] >> this is one of the cooler places we have ever done one of these. i like this. two last examples on energy. the president goes to brazil. the brazil has blocked american energy off shore, messed up louisiana. have no idea how the world works. they put a moratorium in louisiana against the advice of their technical experts who said it was the dumbest thing you could do. and i think that the white house literally did not know that
these huge ocean drilling rigs move. these are very expensive pieces of capital and they are not going to sit around six months to a year to be political exhibits for a politician. so, the first one that left went to egypt. it took $80,000 a year jobs. plus, what they drill oil the government gets royalties. it is major source of revenue. the second one was perfect. the company that moved had a c.e.o. who was tough and he issued the following statement. because of political instability in the united states we are now going to develop off of the con congo. now, think about the fact that under obama we are less stable than the congo. this is not easy. so, in the middle of having stopped oil and gas development the president goes to brazil and says i really want to be -- i
want to thank you and congratulate you for developing offshore oil and gas. i'm proud that we were able to guarantee $2 billion of equipment purchases largely from a company owned by george soros. then he saeid i want america to be your best customer. now, i thought to myself this guy really doesn't get it. we don't hire presidents to be foreign purchasing agents. the obama model is to borrow from the chinese to buy from the brazilians. it doesn't work. we hire an american president to a salesman for american goods and services worldwide to create jobs in the u.s. to sell overseas. [applause] finally, you have the
spectacle of the x.l. keystone pipeline. let me say up front it is one thing if a white house can't play chess. it is another thing if a white can't play checkers. but if a white house can't play tic-tac-t tic-tac-toe, and let me explain why i use this analogy. this is one of the dumbest things i have ever seen. the president has this dilemma. he is in re-election mode. he doesn't care about being president. he cares about being elected so he won't think about presidential stuff so he has this dalembert. the san francisco environment canadian talists hate oil. they want to build a pipeline because there are 50,000 american jobs. he doesn't want the union mad or
the environmentalists mad either. so he thinks, i will postpone the decision until 2013. now, prime minister harper is a conservative who is pro american. but he is also the canadian prime minister. he says, you know, if the united states doesn't want to make a decision i want to talk to the chinese about paying for a pipeline that is more expensive over the rockies to vancouver. the ideal pipeline comes straight down, it is east is i to build, we have been building well over 100 years. we know how to do this. it should go from canada to houston. houston is the biggest petrochemical complex in the world so you make money building the pipeline and running the pipeline and processing the oil for the next 30 to 50 years. you would make money in the port of houston and galveston shipping the oil. it is a terrific win for america
and canada. but if you are going to mess around and be unreliable i will work with the chinese and we will build an all canada pipeline. if you said three years ago that the president is so incomment that a canadian chinese partnership made more sense than a canadian american partnership i would have thought it inconceivable. but i underestimated how self-destructive barack obama is. the second thing is i like people who create jobs. i'm willing to be pro people who create jobs, whether small business jobs, self-employed jobs, entrepreneurs, inventors. what has made america great for our whole history has been the work ethic expressed and creativity of entrepreneurship. so, the gap between us and obama is that big. [applause] >> i need your help tuesday.
i need your help from now to talk talking to your many friends. i do think there's an enormous gap between somebody who is a bold reagan conservative and somebody who is a timid moderate.tts i think it is big. i think it makes it very different in terms of how you would compete with obama. i want you to know that with your help if i become the nominee i will challenge president obama to seven three-hour debates in the lincoln-douglas tradition with a time keeper and no moderator. i will agree in advance that he can use a teleprompter. [laughter] if you had to defend obama care wouldn't you want to use a teleprompter? [laughter] i think that with your help we can win a decisive victory for america, we can make this one of
the most important elections in american history. we can do what i helped reagan do in 1980 and we did in 1994 which is show a clear bold distinction around which we can rally the vast majority of americans of all backgrounds and, as a result, in january of 2013 we can aggressively put this country back in the right track and with your help that is what i will do. [applause] >> so, questions? i think we have a couple of microphones. we have one there. we have another mic over this way?
one here. how about the gentleman standing way back there, then we will go back and forth. >> thank you for coming to worlboro. how bigger your coattails. >> when we designed the 1980's campaign i helped chair the first capitol steps. david broder wrote about it in september of 1980. reagan came and stood on the capitol steps with every candidate and we pledged five specific things and won six u.s. senate races by 75,000 votes and took the senate and picked up 33 and won the presidency. so it was a team victory. in 1994 we ran a team campaign 350 candidates signed on to the contract with america. largest one-party increase in american history. nine million additional votes for the republicans over 1990. a million fewer for the democrats. i think it is pretty fair to say i know how to design suites
that are team victories. my goal would be to carry the senate by a big margin, to the house and do it on an agenda that if you go to annuity.org there is a 21st century contract with america and not so much having coattails but having a team that wins and my goal would be we have the ability to pass what we have by electing an entire team committed to it. over here. >> mr. speaker, as chief executive until you could get the e.p.a. shut down and department of education shut down would you simply order the doors closed so they couldn't get in there? >> i'm not sure i technically would have that level of authority but could probably order them to re-review every proposed regulation and keep them rope-a-doping for a while.
>> last night, newt, i was in milton and i asked your opponent how he felt about veterans. he did ask are there any veterans. there was just a smattering. i said how i feel about when you cuttingut cutting this, that and i said i worry about my veterans benefits up there at white river junction is where i go because i live farther north. he said i'm all for the military. he dodged the question. then i said i haven't read anything about second amendment either. he said i'm all for the second amendment. we know what his record in massachusetts was. one other thing in 1995 i have a picture of you and me. would you sign it? >> sure.
>> remember that? you were on the helicopter. >> that is great. i hate to say this, slim, but no one has ever called me slim. write this to you with great admiration. there is a lady right here. >> mr. speaker, thank you for being here. listening to you is like a breath of fresh air. so many people feel that, you know. we need a leader and we need leadership. north korea has the largest military in the world. china right behind it. now our present administration, i don't even want to call him mr. president but he wants to cut our military. what are your feelings. >> if you elect a radical he
that.ehave he doesn't believe we have any enemies. worries why america is not a country. listen to his speeches. he goes around apologizing for the u.s. he thinks we are the problem. so, my advice is we have to defeat him. he is totally wrong. [applause] >> back this way. >> there is a bunch of us here getting checks from social security. you have in your proposal to save social security. what is your plan? >> my plan for saving social security is two parts. and my mother-in-law depends on social security as her primary source of retirement income so i'm very sensitive. she e-mails me regularly to ensure that i not forget this.
i would say a couple of things. i think we should take social security off budget. it was off budget until lyndon johnson combined it into a unified budget. he did it to use the social security surplus to hide the deficit. what obama did in july was unconscionable. he twice threatened people saying i may not be able to send you your security check. there is $2,400,000,000. there is no reason to threaten people on social security because the money has been paid and we purpose understand the politicians keep your hands off social security. so i would move to take it off budget. [applause] >> and i would provide that in the case of a debt ceiling problem it was the second item paid after interest on the debt. you have to pay the interest on the debt because it is in the constitution. but seconds so people can relax. i had a guy walk up to me at a hospital in southern new hampshire months ago who said
that his 87-year-old father was really worried that he was going to lose his social security check. now, for politicians to scare people of that age is just, i think, disgusting. let's take it away, make it automatic, put it over here, keep the trust fund safe and not have it touched. that is for your generation and your children. for your grandchildren we have the proposal to allow them the right to choose. not force them to choose. allow them the right to choose a personal social security savings account. now this, is not a theory. galvest galveston, texas, has this model. chile as a country has the model. the principal group in des moines, iowa, runs part of the system. it means when you first go to work you are part of the social security tax would go into a savings account that would be
yours. no politician could touch it. say you start with a part-time job at 16. that means for 50 years or more it is building up compound interest. in the chilean and galveston experience the jr. rememberee gets two to three times as much money as you get from social securi security. now, both of them have a provision that says if you ever fall below the actual social security number the government will make up the difference. so you have a safety net. in 30 years, no one has gotten a check below. all are above the social security line. it means that you increase your estate because instead of just transferring money back and you are building up your money into an estate so if anything happens to you your family has your estate. there is an economist at harvard
who was the chair of ronald reagan's council of economic advisors martin feldstein that you eliminate 50% of the inequality of wealth because everybody has an estate and all of a sudden you change the fabric of american society. this is particularly important for african-american members who have shorter on average lifespan and get back less from social security than any other group. so, you dramatically enhance every part of community having more resources. because you are saving this money it gueets invested. feldstein estimated at the end of their lifetime the american economy would be seven to eight trillion dollars a year bigger. chile has such a huge savings pool 72% of its economy is in that pool. they now allow chileans to
invest part of their savings overseas because their economy can't absorb all the savings. think of our mess. it is different. you would be totally safe. your grandchildren totally safe t. is a voluntary program and the actuarior social security estimates 95% to 97% of young people would pick it. that is how we fix it. that way you can relax, your children can relax and grandchildren can relax. you are relaxed already. there we go. [applause] >> how about way over there? >> i'm 30 years and i have a son two and one on the way. my concern is the tpapgs future of our -- financial future of our country and i cannot vote for ron paul because of his dangerous foreign policy but i
think he is spot on with how he wants to be with respect to the amount we need to cut in spending. i understand he wants to cut $1 trillion over 10 years which is just 1/15 of the $15 trillion in we are in as a country. how much are you willing to cut and what is your proposal for not just balancing the budget but actually trying to get on a path to cut our nation's debt? >> that is a very good question. by the which, i agree with you, i think that the ron paul -- particularly his view on israel and iran are so dangerous that it makes it hard but the critique of the federal reserve has a lot of strength and critique of spending has a lot strength to it. i say this with a background of a person who balanced the budget four times in a row so i think i
have some credentials to get it done. first, you want very dramatic economic growth because if you have big enough economic growth it eats up a lot of the problems by the sheer momentum of scale and how much people start making. second, you want to control domestic discretionary spending. we have controlled it twice. in between 81 as a junior congressman i participated in the first real cut in domestic discretionary spending since wor world war ii. in 1995 weeds the second -- we had the second cut. that was not just slowing it down but going down. so you have to cut spending. if you apply what one strong american says if you modernize the federal government so it is as efficient as a modern country i think we would save about $500 billion a year. that is $5 trillion over 10 years. i helped write a book called "stop make the crooks" which looked at how bad the federal
government is at managing payments and our estimate was in medicare and medicaid there is somewhere between 70 and 120 billion dollars a year being stolen. when i say stolen, i mean a dentist who filed 982 procedures a day. i'm not talking about people who marginally fudge. we went to american express, visa, mastercard, we believe if you apply 24r antifraud mechanisms you save between $60 billion and $110 billion. that doesn't count food stamps and student loans. we think you can save on the order of close to trillion dollars over 10 years. i would close down some of the departments. frankly, the department of energy has been an anti-energy department. so i would close it down. i would say i don't know why we have a department of house and urban development.
i don't know why local housing authorities can't be required to run local housing authorities and cut out 90% of the washington regulations. these are things that grow and grow. i would fundamentally overhaul the washington offices. i would shrink the department of education and send the power back to the states and say you have to figure out how to solve education. the federal government can't and shouldn't. i don't want that level of power in washington, d.c. [applause] >> my goal would be to -- it took us three years to balance when i was speaker. this is a bigger mess so i would aim to get there in five years and then you are right, you then have to run a surplus for enough years that with a combination of economic growth and controlled spending i think our goal should be it get our debt down to about 40% of g.d.p. if you did that, you would have
paid off all the chinese debt have a very stable environment in terms of your fiscal situation. where is the microphone in there is a guy up here. he is coming to you right now. >> as a 20-year air force veteran would you return us to a bare minimum of "don't ask, don't tell" policy in the milita military? two, what about repealing 100% of barack obama's executive orders? >> oh, ok. yes, the first one i would advocate going back to the do t "don't ask, don't tell." the combat services asked to stay with "don't ask, don't
tell" and oppose what obama was trying to do. the army and marine corps were deeply opposed to it and i think they were right. i go back to "don't ask, don't tell." is a great line and it is tempting i don't want to say i would repeal all of his executive orders until i knew what they were. i certainly have a bias in favor of repealing all of them. but i don't want to say yes. here is what would happen. i will say yes i'm for repealing all of his executive orders one of our dear friends in the press will find an executive order number 205 that actually makes sense. then they will come running out and say gingrich wants to repeal x. so, let me say my bias is intensely in your direction and i'm committed to reviewing all of his executive orders and a substantial number will be repealed. my goal is on inaugural day about two hours after the address it sign between 100 and 200 executive orders and really
shift the government by the end of the first day. so, we will take reviewing his executive orders as a step in that direction. now back over this way. >> thank you, mr. speaker. one of the tragedies of the clinton administration was the raping of the patent office and rules for patents. this has cost america dearly because we are being ripped off in medicines and inventions where we are very successful in the past and actually is the foundation of our economy. do you have some plans for doing something for the patent office? and i had one request. >> yes. >> when we close this, will you lead us in the pledge of allegiance? >> sure, i would be honored to. the harvard person here. what is our microphone?
>> a while back you stated that you would not increase taxes even if they agreed to decrease spending 10 times as much. how do you feel like you will be able to do all of these big plans when you are so unwilling to compromise? >> well, because i have done it twice before. in 1981 we helped pass the reagan tax cut program by getting democrats to vote with us because we appealed to the american people and the american people appealed to the country. they went to the congress and said you have to do this. when i was speaker, when we passed welfare reform we got 101 democrats voted yes and 101 voted no because the country said to the members you have to do this. so, part of it is you have to work with performance. i'm happy to cooperate. i'm not going to compromise.
compromise in washington means sell out. and i'm not going to do that. [applause] >> and let me explain why i feel so strongly about this. in 1981 i helped pass the tax cuts. in 1982 president reagan was talked into a tax increase because his senior staff didn't believe in the tax cuts. they were washington establishment types. i fought him that year and i stood firm on reaganism which was no tax cuts. he gave a speech which is the only one he gave as president that failed. and people watched the speech and reagan explained why we had to raise taxes and that was really weird. i wonder who wrote it because it was so clearly not him. he wrote in his diary this was the biggest single mistake of his administration. promised if you will raise taxes we will cut spending. they got all the taxes and none of the spending. he said i will never do it
again. when they tried to sell him on another tax increase, the famous story in "new york times" magazine where jim baker is trying to sell him on another tax increase and reagan takes off his glasses and says jim if you believe what you just said are you in this administration and baker walked out to dick donald and said we are never talking about tax increases again while he is president. in 1990 i campaigned hard for bush in 1988 and one of the keys to his winning, he was 19 points behind dukakis in may and won by six, a swing of 25 points. one key was in the convention he said no new taxes and he said read my lips, no new taxes. so, he gets there and several people including governor sununu sell him on the idea that it is ok to break your word and raise taxes and they came to me and i said no, not going to do this. in fact, march lien fitzwater
says i was the one guy who kept saying this is a trap. the democrats are suckering you in to accept a tax increase to break your credibility and get more money. so, i fought him. 1993 bill clinton wants to raise taxes because the liberal tax people want want -- want it. i don't believe this country is undertaxed. this country is ov overspent. one of the reasons -- [applause] >> and i'm like speaker o'brien, i believe if you push hard enough you will get the spending cuts. but you have guys saying i only vote for that if you raise taxes you almost know for sure they are going to try to not give you the spending cuts. so i would
go in with a very aggressive program saying look, we are going to fight this out and do what we have to. but i would cooperate with the democrats. i will give you an example. senator webb and senator warner have a proposal to allow virginia to develop oil and gas o offshore. royalties go to the feds, 37.5% to the commonwealth of virginia, 12.5% to infrastructure and land conservation. these are two democrats. i think that the house republicans ought to pass their bill without amendment, just send it over and say, you know, here is a democratic bill with bipartisan support and make senator reid confront is he going to bottle up two of his democratic senators? now, that is cooperation because i happen to share the goal they want to get. that is the way i would approach t. i would try to get things done but i would not be willing to compromise core values
because then you get on a slippery slope and washington takes over again. we have had too many politicians who are reasonable and they go to washington and say we have to be reasonable and that means selling out. i have no interest in serving as a reasonable president who sells out the american people to a appease the washington establishment. [applause] >> i'm told we are doing one more. right here with the sunflower dress. >> could you speak about your feelings on illegal immigration? i believe you felt sensitivity toward and i will legal immigrant who may have worked hard or is working hard but what is the policy going to be? >> this is a very important
of cooperating without compromising. i don't think you can pass comprehensive reform. bush tried and failed. obama tried and failed. it crashes. step one. control the border. by january 1, 2014. how do you control the border? one, you pass a law that says we are waiving all federal regulations, control the board. you don't go through studies. you just do it. two, there are 23,000 homeland security employees in the washington area. i'm prepared to move up to half of them to texas, new mexico and arizona to give you the manpower to control the border. [applause] once you control the border, i would then -- the next
step i would take would be to make english the official language of government we have 86 languages spoken in the decade community college. i think cook county, chicago there are over 200 languages. we need a single unifying language to bring us together as a people. it is clear that english is the only language that can do that. three, i would increase the requirement of being an american citizen in terms of learning american history and i would do the same thing for high school students. i think it would be learn for them to learn american history. four, i would make legal visas easier. the current state department process is a nightmare. we want tourists to come here. we want business poem to come
here. -- business people to come here. if they are going to come here legally and leave legally we want to make it easier. i would make it easier it deport people who shouldn't be here. if you are a member of a salvadoran gang we should be able to get rid of you. we should not require two years of lawyering. you are not an american citizen, you don't deserve protections. g goodbye. [applause] next i would create a legal guest worker program and outsource it to american express, visa or mastercard because they know how to run it without fraud and the federal government wouldn't have a hope of doing that. i would then dramatically increase the economic penalties for businesses who in fact are not obeying the law. you don't get illegal workers without illegal employers.
now, you get down to the hard part. there are 11 million people here illegally. we just created a system where they will have a hard time getting a job because it is now you have a guest worker permit or you are an american citizen or you can't get hired. most of them will go home and will apply for a guest worker permit from back home because they don't have deep ties here. the question raise which seemed to be such a great shock to some colleagues is what do you do about somebody who has been here 25 years. they are a member of the community, been working hard, paying bills, married, kids, grandkids, they may belong to your church. do you really think the american people are going to send the police in to take some grandfather or grandmother out? as a friend of mine said a real case he had a constituent who is marine serving in afghanistan who was faced with his grandmother being deported. here is my answer.
you take the world war ii selective service board model which is a local county board. you create a citizen review board. you could only apply if you have been here a long time, if you have genuine ties and you have been paying your bills and are a member of the community in good standing and if you can get an american family to sponsor you. if you meet that standard you go before the review board. if the board thinks you are a legitimate member of the community you can get a certificate of residence but not citiz citizenship. but you are now here legally. you can get a job and continue the rest of your job. if you then want to apply for citizenship you have to go home long enough to apply. you don't have to stay there. but you get in line back home behind everybody else who is legal. that way you don't have anybody getting an advantage. one of my competitors said two things that i think are plain --
pardon the language -- i'm not going to say it. my mother used to say if it is really dumb don't say it. let me use a different word. i don't quite understand what their thinking was. they said two things. one, they said everybody has to go. now, i can't wait for them to campaign in florida. and try to go into miami on the battle cry everybody must go. i don't see how they are thinking they are going to win the general election because it going to come across in the immigrant community as a sign you have no sense of people. for the second thing they said this is creating a magnet. this will increase illegal immigration. notice what i just described. here is a program where we're control being the border, creating guest worker program, having overwhelming probably 9.5 million of the 11 million leave,
here 20 or have been 25 years and have a family and record of paying your bills and american family sponsor you, what kind of magnet is this? you are going to say to somebody in mexico or guatamala or china you have two choices. you can apply for an american guest worker program and go legally and be legal and everything is fine or you could sneak in and in 24 years you will be eligible for residency. this is just stupid. that is the word that i was going to use. but you have to say what kind of -- and you know what the is?soning desire to hit the other candidate. that is all. since i said it, it must be bad because to be a good thing i think that is foolish. i have often said rick perry has good ideas on the 10th amendment. i say those are good ideas. he suggested we start at zero with every foreign aid and they have to earn their way back into the budget.
i don't mind saying if somebody has a good idea. that doesn't mean you should vote for him because he's a good guy, not as good as me. this gentleman had a great idea. i want you to come up here and bring the flag. >> [inaudible] >> in order to be eligible they would have had to have been paying taxes. >> [inaudible] >> that is one thing i would do on the opening day. i would say no sanctuary cities get any federal funds, periods. [applause] >> i want all of you to join in. and you help lead us. >> i mental allegiance -- pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it
>> ok. >> god bless you. thank you. >> thank you. thank you both. >> you've got my vote. >> thank you, sir. i need your help. tell your friends. >> this book is three volumes that changed my life when i was your age. >> i think they are fantastic. >> however into it are you? >> about halfway. >> harry sullivan. that is why i became an historian. because of his view of history. >> you will have my vote. >> thank you. >> my brother and my
are working for you in arizona. >> that is terrific. >> they are chairing up some bibb county committee and pushing hard, so, good luck. >> i need your help tuesday. >> you will get it. >> i need your help. >> i'm a great supporter. thank you very much. best of luck to you. >> thank you. >> thanks for coming to new >> thanks for coming to new hampshire.